UMASS/AMHERST 


31EDt.bDD531DH'^7 


Elecnomic  V'actors    in  Cattle    Feeding 
I|Jlinoi§>    Elv^p.  Sta-  C»r.   \(oZ.  144,  \(o'\,  HS 


SF 

203 

M85 


»4 


LIBRARY 


OF  THE 


MASSACHUSETTS 

AGRICULTURAL 

COLLEGE 


DATE  DUE 

UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 

AT 

AMHERST 


r 

2      > 

>      X 


m 
2     Cfl 


•n 

2 
n 


H 


H8ERVED  ] 

FOR  < 

EFERENCE  ' 
EADING. 


WOT  TO  BE  TAKEN 
raOM  THE  LIBRARY. 


LleoT\oTnic         t-^cToT^ 


in 


CaTtle.  heed 


in 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS.  JULY.  1912 


CIRCULAR  NO.  163 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS  IN  CATTLE  FEEDING 


I.    RELATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TO  THE  WORLD'S  BEEF  SUPPLY 


By  Herbert  W.  Mumford  and  Louis  D.  Hall 


Exports  or  Bzek  19/0 

Arpenfina  .  *^5.4Q0,000 

Un/fed  Jfafe3     i  */£.  196,000 

Australia  ^5,ZJ6,000    [ 

Uruguay  ■    ^4.9J4.000 

NcLu  Zealand  w^^^£.Q4Z000 


f:xP02T^  or  L/vr  Cattle,  I9 JO 

l/nifed  3 fates  *JC£00,000 

Canada  — ^— — —i  ^/O,  doa  000 

Argentina        ^^t^mmi^J,90Q000 
Mexico  — ^— i  ^£poo,  ooo 

Uruguay  -^^  ^/  400.  OOO 


4  54'>-+- 

?/;f  / 

Summary 

1.  Introduction.— A  knowledge  of  market  conditions  and  of  the 
world-wide  influences  that  affect  them  is  essential  to  a  thoro  understand- 
ing of  the  principles  of  profitable  cattle  feeding.  Page  3 

2.  Geographical  Distribution  op  Cattle. — Of  approximately  450 
million  cattle  in  the  entire  world,  the  United  States  contains  about  71 
million  (1910) ;  but  considering  type  and  size  of  animals,  it  is  estimated 
that  this  country  produces  about  one-third  of  the  world's  beef  supply. 

Pages 

3.  Ratio  of  Cattle  to  Population. — The  United  States  contains  .77 
cattle  per  capita,  compared  with  extreme  ratios  of  4.27  :1  in  Argentina 
and  .18:1  in  Italy.  An  increase  in  population  has,  in  most  countries, 
been  accompanied  by  a  still  greater  rate  of  increase  in  number  of  cattle. 

Page  4 

4.  Cattle  in  Proportion  to  Area. — This  country  contains  only  23 
cattle  per  square  mile,  compared  with  164  in  Belgium  and  2  in  Canada*. 
The  relative  number  in  Illinois  is  56.  Page  8 

5.  Surplus  of  Cattle  and  Beef.— In  1910  the  leading  live-cattle  ex- 
porting countries  were  the  United  States,  Canada,  Argentina,  Mexico,  and 
Uruguay,  in  the  order  named.  The  leading  beef-exporting  countries  were 
Argentina,  United  States,  Uruguay,  Australia,  and  New  Zealand.  Total  ex- 
ports of  live  cattle  and  beef  in  1910  were  approximately  29  million  dol- 
lars from  Argentina,  24  million  from  the  United  States,  and  11  million 
from  Canada.  In  1905  the  amounts  aggregated  72  million  dollars  from 
the  United  States,  24  million  from  Argentina,  and  15  million  from  Can- 
ada. Page  9 

6.  Distribution  of  Exports. — About  85  percent  of  the  value  of  cat- 
tle and  beef  exported  from  the  United  States  in  1910  was  shipped  to 
Oreat  Britain.  Page  10 

7.  Growth  and  Decline  of  American  Surplus. — Exports  of  cattle 
and  beef  from  the  United  States  increased  gradually  up  to  1900,  contin- 
ued comparatively  constant  during  the  next  five  years,  and  have  shown  a 
marked  decrease  since  1906.  Unless  a  rapid  increase  in  cattle  raising  oc- 
curs in  this  country,  exports  of  cattle  and  beef  must  sooncease.    Page  10 

Note:  In  view  of  the  rapid  decline  in  production  and  the  present  seri- 
ous shortage  of  beef  cattle  in  this  country,  and  recognizing  the  imrportance 
of  economic  factors  in  relation  to  the  cattle-feeder's  problems,  an  attempt 
has  been  made  to  analyze  these  economic  factors  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  beef  producer  and  to  state  the  results  in  such  form  as  to  assist  him 
in  solving  his  own  problems.  This  circular,  treating  of  the  relation  of 
the  United  States  to  the  world's  beef  supply,  is  the  first  of  a  series  which 
will  deal  with  other  aspects  of  the  subject,  including  Argentina  as  a  fac- 
tor in  international  beef  trade,  beef  production  in  the  United  States, 
cattle  feeding  conditions  in  the  corn  belt,  and  cattle  feeding  in  its  rela- 
tions to  farm  management  and  soil  fertility. 


RELATION   OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TO 

THE  WORLD'S  BEEF  SUPPLY  . 

By  Herbert  VV.  Mumpord,  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry,   and 
Louis  D.  Hall,  Assistant  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Market  conditions  have  a  peculiarly  important  bearing  upon 
the  cattle-feeding  business.  A  knowledge  of  these  conditions  and 
of  the  factors  which  affect  them  is  essential  to  a  thoro  under- 
standing of  the  principles  of  profitable  cattle  feeding.  A  clear 
conception  of  the  world-wide  influences  that  govern  supply  and 
demand  will  aid  materially  in  forming  a  correct  estimate  of  pres- 
ent conditions  and  future  tendencies  in  our  own  country.  It  is 
therefore  appropriate  to  consider  at  the  outset  the  world's  sup- 
ply of  cattle  and  our  relations  thereto. 

Geographical  Distribution  op  Cattle 

In  the  following  table  are  given  enumerations  of  cattle  in 
the  countries  indicated,  in  round  numbers. 

Certain  allowances  must  be  made  in  considering  these  fig- 
ures. The  cattle  of  British  India,  for  instance,  are  not  commonly 
used  for  beef,  but  consist  chiefly  of  water  buffalo,  which  are  kept 
as  work  animals.  In  some  other  countries  cattle  are  used  only 
for  milk  or  work,  and  may  therefore  be  largely  disregarded  in 
the  present  connection.  It  is  estimated  that  the  total  number  of 
cattle  kept  chiefly  or  largely  for  beef  production  is  approximately 
Table  1.— Number  of  Cattle  by  Countries 


Country 

Year 

Total  cattle^ 

Percent 

British  India 

1909 

1910 

1908 

1908 

J  9082 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1909 

1910 

108  000  000 
71  000  000 
47  000  000 
29  000  000 
25  000  000 
21  000  000 
18  000  000 
14  000  000 
12  000  000 
11  000  000 
7  000  000 
85  000  000 

24 

United  States 

16 

Russia 

10 

Argentina 

6 

Brazil 

6 

Germany 

5 

Austria-Hungary 

France .   . 

United  Kingdom 

4 
3 
3 

Australia . . 

Canada 

2 

2 

Other  Countries 

19 

Total 

448  000  000 

100 

lU.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1910,  pp.  6U 
2Estimated. 

)— 20. 

Fi^.  1.    Geoguai'Iiical  Distribution  of  Cattt.e 


300,000,000;  hence  the  United  States  possesses  nearly  one-fourth 
the  number  of  beef  cattle  in  the  entire  world.  Considering  size 
and  type  of  cattle  il  may  be  stated  that  (his  couiilry  produces 
approximately  one-third  of  the  world's  supply  of  beef. 

Cattle  and  Population 

The  number  of  cattle  in  various  countries  in  proportion  to 
population  is  shown  graphically  in  Fig.  2. 

Botih  beef,  milk,  ana  draft  cattle  are  represented  in  this 
diagram.  It  is  impossible  to  differentiate  sharply  between  spe- 
cial-purpose beef  cattle  and  others,  since  milk  and  draft  cattle 
are  usually  used  ultimately  as  beef. 

The  large  relative  numbers  of  cattle  in  Soulh  American 
countries,  Australia,  and  Canada,  are  explained  by  the  small 
population  of  these  countries  in  proportion  to  their  vast  areas. 
In  Denmark,  on  the  other  hand,  is  found  a  large  number  of  cat- 
tle per  capita  together  with  a  dense  population,  due  to  the  sys- 
tematic development  of  intensive  dairying.    The  supply  of  cattle 


Cattle   Per    Capita 

Australia  ■  ■——^^^^^6' 

Brc7^//  i^^— -^  /^^ 

Canada 

DznmarK 

Un//ed  states 

Dr/fj3h  India 

rrance 

Ausfna-Jiunpary 

Germany 

M:f/?er/and3 

Bu^jja 

United  Kinpdonn 

Detpjum 

Italy 


Fig.  2.  Relation  of  Cattle  to  Population^ 

i 

in  the  United  States  is  greater  in  proportion  to  population  than 
is  that  of  most  European  countries  in  which  agriculture  is  a  lead- 
ing industry.  Excepting  Denmark  we  have  more  than  twice  the 
number  of  cattle  per  capita  found  in  any  European  country  for 
which  staiistics  are  available.  This  in  part  explains  the  large 
export  trade  in  beef  cattle  and  beef  which  we  maintained  until 
recently,  but  which  is  now  rapidly  declining,  as  shown  in  a 
succeeding  paragraph. 

.  n  has  been  asserted  by  some  that  as  population  becomes 
more  dense  live-stock  production  must  gradually  be  abandoned 
in  order  to  render  a  larger  proportion  of  the  grain  and  vegetable 
products  directly  available  for  human  food.  It  is  also  believed 
by  many  farm'ers  that  it  is  impossible,  under  normal  conditions, 
to  raise  or  feed  cattle  on  land  worth  $100  to  $,200  per  acre. 
Whether  these  statements  are  warranted  may  be  determined  in 
a  general  way  by  observing  the  number  of  cattle  in  proportion 


^Computed  f rom  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  U.   S.,    1910.  pp.  33,  42,   672,  732;  Yearbook 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  1910,  pp.  615—20;  Hazell's  Annual,  1911;  Stateman's  Yearbook,  1909,  p.  238. 


6 

to   population  in  various  countries  at  different  stages  of  their 
history.^ 

Evidently  a  dense  population  and  an  intensive  system  of 
agriculture  do  not  necessarily  involve  a  decrease  in  the  cattle- 
raising  industry;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  appears  to  increase. 
Only  in  Holland,  where  the  cattle  are  chiefly  of  the  dairy 
type,  is  a  relative  decrease  noted,  and  this  is  so  slight  as  "to  be 
considered  insignificant.  In  general,  the  value  of  land  increases 
more  or  less  directly  in  proportion  to  the  increase  in  population, 
from  v^hich  it  is  apparent  that  cattle  raising  has  not  been  found 
incompatible  with  high-priced  land  in  the  countries  represented 
above.  Had  it  not  continued  to  be  profitable  as  population  and 
land  values  increased,  it  would  long  since  have  been  discontinued. 
On  this  point  we  may  quote  from  one  of  the  highest  agricultural 
authorities.   Sir  J.  H.  Gilbert  of  the   Rothamsted   Experiment 


Table  2. — Influence  op  Increasing  Population  upon  Number 

OF  Cattle 


No.  of 

Country 

Date 

cattle  per 
capita 

Increase 

Holland 

1850 
1904 

.36 
.30 

-.06 

Belgium  

1856 

.28 

1906 

.25 

-.03 

United  Kingdom , 

1850 

.28 

1910 

26 

i  r-.02 

Italy 

1852 

.16 

1908 

.18 

.02 

Germany 

1810 

.25 

1907 

.33 

.08 

Denmark  

1881 
1909 

.74 
.83 

.09 

France  

1852 

.16 

1909 

.36 

.20 

Canada .. 

1871 

.72 

1909 

.98 

.26 

United  States 

1867 
1910 

51 

77 

.26 

iComputed  from  data  in  Statesman's  Year-book.  Statistical  Abstract  of  theU.  S.,  twelfth 
U.  S.  Ciasus  R3p3rt,  MulhiU's  Dictioiarj^  of  Statistics,  Annual  Cyclopedia,  and  Beport  of 
British  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries. 


station,  England,  who  said:^ 

"As  population  increases'  in  proportion  to  area,  there  arises  the  neces- 
sity for  increased  production  over  a  given  area.  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  that,  in  our  own  country,  gradually  a  greater  variety  of  crops 
came  to  be  grown;  that  first  leguminous  crops  and  then  root  crops  were 
introduced,  and  fmally  the  system  of  rotation  became  general.  Thus  a 
much  greater  variety  and  a  much  greater  quantity  of  home-produced 
stock  foods  became  available,  and  in  time  foods  of  various  kinds  were 
imported  from  other  countries. 

"Somewhat  similar  changes  in  their  food  resources  occurred  in  vari- 
ous parts  of  the  continent  of  Europe;  and,  with  these,  came  the  induce- 
ment, if  not  the  necessity,  to  pay  more  attention  to  the  subject  of  feed- 
ing  With  us,  more  special  attention  was  paid  to  the  improvement 

of  the  breeds  of  the  farm  animals  themselves,  not  only  to  enhance  the 
development  of  the  most  valuable  characters  in  the  fmal  product,  but  to 
secure  early  maturity,  and  thus  materially  to  economize  the  expenditure 
of  food  in  the  mere  maintenance  of  the  living  meat-and-manure-making 
machine." 

As  has  been  stated  elsewhere,^  "there  is  a  condition  under 
which  it  is  true  that  the  number  of  cattle  per  capita  sometimes 
decreases  while  population  is  on  the  increase;  viz.,  in  the  early 
history  of  a  country  when  the  population  is  small  and  extensive 
systems  of  live-stock  production  largely  constitute  the  agriculture 
of  the  country."  In  Argentina,  for  instance,  population  is  in- 
creasing at  a  more  rapid  rate  than  the  number  of  cattle,  and  will 
doubtless  continue  to  do  so  until  a  ratio  is  reached  which  more 
nearly  resembles  that  found  in  the  older  agricultural  countries. 
In  the  United  States,  altho  the  ratio  of  cattle  to  population  is  at 
present  apparently  at  a  standstill  or  slightly  on  the  decline  it  by 
no  means  follows  that  a  continued  decline  is  inevitable.  On  the 
contrary,  considering  the  cattle  per  capita  in  Denmark,  whose 
population  per  square  mile  is  173  as  compared  with  25  in  the 
United  States,  the  possibilities  of  cattle  raising  in  America  are 
evident.  Altho  it  is  true  that  most  Danish  cattle  are  of  the  dairy 
type,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  Denmark  also  produces  a  surplus 
of  beef  cattle,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  1906  she  exported 
105,000  live  cattle  and  26,500,000  pounds  of  beef  ,^  and  in  1910  her 
exports  of  beef  to  the  United  Kingdom  alone  were  4,737,000 
pounds.* 


lU.  S.  :Oept.  of  Agr..  Office  of  Experiment  Stations,  Bui.  22,  p.  232. 

2lllinois  Agr.  Expt.  Sta.,  Circ.  140,  p.  5. 

SfU.  S.  Dept.  Commerce  and  Labor,  Statistical  Abstract  of  Foreign  Countries,  p.  210. 

*U.  S.  Consular  and  Trade  Reports,  1911, 


Cattle  in  Proportion  to  Area 

The  United  States  produces  a  small  number  of  cat  lie  in  com- 
parison with  the  great  area  of  the  country.  The  figures  given 
below  indicate  clearly  the  undeveloped  slate  of  beef  production 
which  we  have  thus  far  reached. 


C/irrif:   p^jq    .5ql/A2E  Mile 

Denmark  ^m^t^^^mn^m^m^mmm^^^m  J44 

Nef her/a nd3  wmmmmmm^m^i^mi^mmBmmmmmmii^i  135 

Germany  ^nmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^  99 

United  Kingdom      wmat^^^^a^^ma^Sp^ 
Fhxnce  ^m^hhhhh  69 

Aasina-Nun^ary  mmmmmm^^^  64 

Dr/fl3h  fnd/a  m^^^mmmam  61 

Ifa/y  wm^^mmm^  56 

Ar^enf/na 
Un/fed  3/ate3 
Brazj/ 
2u33ja     ' 
Aa3fra//a 
Canada 


Fig.  3.    Densfpy  op  the  Cattle  Supply^ 

It  is  seen,  then,  that  there. are  less  than  one-sixth  as  many 
cattle  on  a  given  area  in  this  country  as  in  Belgium,  and  less 
than  one-half  the  relative  number  found  in  Italy.  Only  two  of 
the  counlries  (Australia  and  Canada)  in  which  beef  production 
is  susceptible  of  large  expansion,  rank  below  the  United  States 
in  number  of  cattle  per  square  mile.  While  it  is  true  that  vast 
areas  of  desert  and  mountainous  lands  partly  account  for  the 
small  number  of  cattle  per  square  mile  in  this  country,  yet  in 
Illinois,  which  contains  but  little  waste  land,  are  found  only  50 
cattle  per  square  mile,  or  but  one-third  to  one-half  the  relative 
number  in  various  countries  of  Europe.  These  figures  should 
furnish  food  for  thought  to  those  who  consider  the  cattle  busi- 
ness overdone  in  the  United  States  and  should  lend  encourage- 
ment to  all  who  are  engaged  in  the  industry. 

^Computed  from  references  cited,  on  p.  3. 


International  Trade  in  Beef  Cattle  and  Beep 

The  importance  of  the  United  States  in  the  beef  trade  of  the 
world  may  be  determined  by  comparing  the  surplus  or  exports  of 
live  cattle  and  beef  from  various  countries. 

Table  3. — Exports  of  Cattle^ 


'  Country 

1900 

1905 

1910 

No. 

Value 

No. 

Value 

Nb. 

Value 

United  States. 

Canada 

Argentina  — 

Mexico 

Uruguay 

397  000 
206  000 
151  000 
184  000 
61  000 

$30  635  000 

9  081  000 

3  549  000 

2  706  000 

482  000 

568  000 

167  000 

263  000 

99  000 

46  000 

$40  598,000 

11  361.000 

4  979,000 

1  090,000 

402,000 

139  000  $12  200  000 
157  000  10  800  000 
90  000   3  900  000 
193  000   2  500  000 
203J000   1400  000 

1  Year  books  U.  S.  Dept  of  Agr.,  1900,  1905.  1910;  U.  S.  DepD.  Commerce  and  Labor,  Sta- 
tistical Abstract  of  Foreign  Countries.  Part  III;  and  personal  communications. 

As  an  exporter  of  live  cattle  the  United  States  stands  pre- 
eminent, our  only  near  rival  being  Canada.  Exports  from  Argen- 
tina are  sent  principally  into  adjacent  South  American  countries. 
The  figures  for  Mexico  represent,  chiefly,  stock  cattle  brought 
into  the  States  to  be  matured,  and  are  therefore  scarcely  compar- 
able with  the  fat-cattle  surplus  of  other  countries.  The  marked 
decrease  in  live-cattle  exports  from  the  United  States,  as  well  as 
from  other  exporting  nations,  during  the  past  five  years,  is 
clearly  shown  by  these  figures.  It  is  due  chiefly  to  the  increased 
domestic  demand  for  beef,  and  consequently  a  reduced  margin 
between  prices  at  Chicago  and  at  British  ports.  (See  cover  illus- 
tration.) 

Table  4. — Exports  of  Beef^ 


Country 

1900 

1905 

1910 

Pounds 

Value 

Pounds 

Value 

Pounds 

Value 

Argentina 
United  States 
Uruguay 
Australia 
New  Zealand 
Canada 

93  492  000 

434  258  000 

127  310  000 

96  216  000 

35  895  000 

5  727  000 

$4  418  000 

37  772  000 

6  290  000 

5  529  000 

1  812  000 

529  000 

398  223  000 

359  247  000 

103  050  000 

43  ,525  000 

17  418  000 

39-688  000 

$18  598  000 

31836  000 

4  250  000 

2  150  000 
930  000 

3  631  000 

580  142  000 

127  406  000 

125  450  000 

71  140  000 

56  012  000 

1  312  000 

$25  480  000 

12  196  000 

4  934  000 

3  568  000 

2  847  000 

115  000 

lU.  S  Dept.  of  Commerce  and  Labor.  Statistical  Abstract  of  Foreign  Countries,  Part 
III;  Statist.  Abstr.  of  U.S.,  1910,  p.  443;  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr. ,  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Bui.  39; 
personal  communications. 


10 


Distribution  op  Exports 

The  countries  to  which  beef  cattle  and  beef  products  are 
principally  exported  from  the  United  StaLes  are  shown  in  the  fol- 
lowing table,  together  with  the  relative  importance  of  each. 

Table  5. — Exports  op  Cattle  and  Beep  prom  the  United  States,  1910^ 


Country 


Cattle, 
number 


Beef 

products, 

pounds 


Total 
value 


Percent 


Great  Britain 

Canada 

Newfoundland  &  Labrador 

Germany 

South  America 

British  West  Indies 

Mexico 

Belgium 

Norway  and  Sweden 

Cuba 

All  other  countries 


122  139 
10  283 


129 

79 

5  149 

270 

207 
1  174 


90  551  837 

1  676  773 
5  213  053 
4  150  754 
3  448  541 
3  146  318 

110  847 

2  550  879 
1  409  885 

262  182 
14  884  506 


520  596  056 
453  147 
364  264 
299  927 
298  055 
277  998 
265  958 
250  925 
126  148 
39  218 
1  454  362 


54.32 
1.86 
1.48 
1.23 
1.22 
1.14 
1.09 
1.03 
.52 
.16 
5.95 


Total 


139  430      127  405  575  $24  426  058    100.00 


lU.  S.  Dept.  of  Com.  and  Labor,  Kept,  on  Commerce  and  Navigation,  1910. 

The  importance  of  Great  Britain  as  a  factor  in  our  export  beef 
trade  is  here  made  plain,  that  country  taking  about  85  percent  of 
our  total  beef  exports.  Under  their  free- trade  policy  American 
live  cattle  and  meats  are  received  free  of  duty.  Other  European 
countries  bar  our  cattle  and  fresh  beef,  and  their  duties  on  cured 
and  canned  meats  are  so  heavy  as  to  limit  the  trade  to  the  com- 
paratively small  amounts  noted  above. 

Growth  and  Decline  op  our  Beep  Surplus 

Altho  the  United  States  held  first  rank  in  respect  to  exports 
of  cattle  and  second  in  exports  of  beef  in  1910,  the  surplus  is 
now  diminishing  at  a  rapid  rate  owing  to  the  rapidly  increasing 
population  and  inadequate  supplies  of  beef  cattle.  The  general 
tendency  of  our  export  beef  trade  may  be  judged  from  the  fol- 
lowing table,  in  which  the  decrease  during  the  past  five  years 
should  be  especially  noted. 

The  significance  of  the  data  given  in  Table  6  will  be  more 
readily  seen  by  referring  to  the  graphic  illustration  of  the  same 
data  in  Fig.  4. 


11 

Table    6. — Exports  of  Live  Cattle  and  Beef  from  the  United  States^ 


Year 

Cattle, 

Beef, 

number 

pounds 

1851 

1  000 

18  000  000 

1861 

9  000 

26  000  000 

1870 

28  000 

27  000  000 

1880 

183  000 

130  000  000 

1890 

395  000 

354  000  000 

1900 

397  000 

435  000  000 

1905 

568  000 

359  000  000 

1906 

584  000 

414  000  000 

1907 

423  000 

361  000  000 

1908 

349  000 

272  000  000 

1909 

208  000 

183  000  000 

1910 

139  000 

127  000  000 

^U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1909,  pp.  608,9;  U.  S.  Report  on  Commerce  and  Navigation, 


1910. 


Fig.  4.    Exports  op  Live  Cattle  and  Beef  prom  the  United  States 


From  these  figures  it  is  evident  that  unless  a  rapid  increase 
in  cattle  raising  occurs  in  this  country,  we  shall  very  soon  cease 
to  export  beef  cattle  and  beef.  Indeed,  unless  ample  encourage- 
ment is  given  beef  producers,  it  is  quite  possible  that  we  shall 
shortly  become  an  importing  nation,  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  lower 
grades  of  beef  are  concerned.  Small  shipments  of  South 
American  beef  have  already  been  brought  to  New  York,  and  un- 
der certain  market  conditions  this  trade  may  now  be  carried  on 
with  profit. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  SEPTEMBER,  1912 


CIRCULAR  NO.   164 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS  IN  CATTLE  FEEDING 


II.     ARGENTINA  AS  A  FACTOR  IN   INTERNATIONAL  BEEF  TRADE 


By  Herbert  W.  Mumford 


Large  beef  herds  are  seen  which  are  practically  pure  bred 
Beef  making  is  a  pasture  proposition.  Alfalfa  grows  luxuriantly, 
and  to  anyone  unacquainted  with  the  possibilities  of  the  country, 
the  degree  of  fatness  which  cattle  acquire  without  grain  is  a 
marvel. 


Summary 

1.  INTRODUCTION.— The  Argentine  Republic  recently  has  superseded  the  United  States  of 
America  in  the  amount  of  surplus  beef  produced  and  sold  abroad.  Recognizing  the  important 
bearing  of  the  Argentine  cattle  industry  upon  foreigii  and  domestic  markets  for  beef  cattle  produced 
in  the  United  States,  the  author,  on  behalf  of  this  experiment  station,  made  a  thoro  investiga- 
tion and  personal  inspection  of  beef  production  in  Argentina.  Page  3 

2.  NATURAL  ADVANTAGES  FOR  CATTLE  RAISING.— Climatic  conditions  are  such  that 
cattle  can  be  raised  and  fattened  out  of  doors  without  shelter  and  generally  without  shade.  Abun- 
dance of  alfalfa  and  other  nutritious  legumes  and  grasses,  together  with  cheap  land  and  labor, 
makes  it  possible  to  produce  beef  cattle  cheaply.  They  fatten  readily  without  grain.  Should  corn- 
fed  beef  become  profitable,   an  ample  supply  of  corn  can   be  produced.  Page  4 

3.  QUALITY  OF  CATTLE. — Great  improvement  in  the  common  r,tock  of  the  country  has 
been  effected  by  importations  of  high-class  pedigreed  cattle  from  Great  Britain  during  the  last  25 
years  and  particularly  during  more  recent  years.  Several  large  beef  herds  were  seen  which  were 
practically  pure  bred.  Page  5 

4.  DISTRIBUTION  OF  CATTLE.— Five  provinces,  Buenos  Aires,  Corrientes,  Entre  Rios, 
Santa  Fe  and  Cordoba,  known  as  the  pampa  grass  region,  contain  over  80  percent  of  the  cattle  in 
Argentina.  222,000  establishments  occupying  288  million  acres  were  engaged  in  the  cattle  business 
in  1908.     Many  individual  land  holders  and  land  companies  own  very  large  tracts.  Page  9 

5.  SLAUGHTERING  FACILITIES.— A  municipally  controlled  market  and  slaughtering 
establishment  in  Buenos  Aires  is  creditable.  Efficient  government  veterinary  inspection  is  con- 
•ducted.  Convenient  locations  and  sanitary  conditions  have  been  provided,  with  reference  to  both 
local  and  export  beef  trade.  Page  10 

6.  CONSUTMPTION  AND  EXPORT.— Approximately  5  million  cattle  were  slaughtered  in 
1911,  of  which  approximately  one  million  were  shipped  abroad  as  dressed  beef  and  a  considerable 
proportion  of  the  remainder  were  prepared  for  export  in  other  forms.  The  per  capita  consump- 
tion of  beef  is  about  equal  to  that  in  the  United  States.  Exports  of  beef  have  increased  from  64 
million  pounds  in  1885  to  193  million  pounds  in  1900  and  580  million  pounds  in  1910.  Argentine 
^rass-fed  beef  sells  in  the  English  market  within  two  to  five  cents  per  pound  of  corn-fed  beef 
from  the  United  States.  Page  11 

7.  DIFFICULTIES  SURROUNDING  THE  INDUSTRY.— British  ports  have  been  dosed 
against  Argentine  live  cattle  since  1900  (except  a  short  time  in  1903)  owing  to  an  outbreak  of 
foot-and-mouth  disease,  altho  there  is  little,  if  any,  of  this  disease  in  Argentina  at  the  present  time. 
Texas  fever  ticks,  anthrax  or  "carbuncle",  and  tuberculosis  are  prevalent.  Droughts  and  locusts 
-are  plagues  which  are  more  or  less  localized.  Nevertheless,  cattle  raising  is  a  favored  and  favorite 
industry  in  the  Republic.  Page  13 

8.  THE  OUTLOOK. — Argentina's  natural  advantages  enable  her  profitably  to  compete  with 
the  grass  cattle  and  lower  grades  of  native  beef  produced  in  the  United  States.  North  American 
•corn-fed  beef,  so  long  as  the  supply  lasts,  doubtless  will  continue  to  command  a  premium  over 
Argentine  grass  beef  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  but  domestic  demand  in  the  United  States  will 
soon  absorb  practically  the  entire  amount  of  beef  produced  here,  thus  rendering  foreign  competi- 
tion abroad  an  unimportant  factor  in  the  industry. 

The  chief  concern  of  beef  producers  in  this  country,  so  far  as  Argentine  competition  is  con- 
cerned, should  be  the  effect  of  possible  importation  of  South  American  beef  to  the  United  States 
upon  the  production  of  beef  cattle  here.  That  corn  and  likewise  corn-fed  cattle  can  be  produced  in 
Argentina,  Uruguay  and  some  other  South  American  countries  is  an  assured  fact.  The  exter.t  to 
which  it  will  be  fed  to  cattle,  however,  is  limited  by  the  relatively  small  production  of  corn  and 
further  by  the  fact  that  it  is  a  new  industry  and  will  not  gain  favor  rapidly  because  it  involves 
more  cropping  and  labor  and  considerably  more  expense. 

Expansion  of  the  cattle-raising  industry  in  Argentina  has  ceased,  largely  because  gram 
growing  is  proving  more  profitable  than  cattle  raising.  The  beef  product  will  be  much  improved 
but  the  available  supply  for  export  doubtless  will  not  increase  more  rapidly  than  the  combined 
factors  of  increased  population  there  and  among  nations  consuming  her  surplus  and  the  relative  de- 
crease of  beef  production  elsewhere.  Again,  the  cost  of  beef  production  will  increase  with  *"- 
creased  cost  of  labor  and  land.  On  the  whole  it  is  not  anticipated  that  the  business  of  raising 
beef  cattle  in  the  United  States  will  be  permanently  menaced  by  Argentine  competition. 

Pages  14-16 

BIBLIOGRAPHY.  Page  17 

NOTE:  This  is  the  second  of  a  series  of  circulars  dealing  with  economic  factors  in  cat- 
tle feeding.  Following  publications  will  treat  of  beef  production  in  the  United  States,  cattle- 
feeding  conditions  in  the  com  belt,  and  cattle  feeding  in  its  relation  to  farm  management  and  soil 
^fertility. 


ARGENTINA  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  INTERNATIONAL 
BEEF  TRADE! 

By  Herbert  W.  Mumforu,  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Notice  has  been  taken  in  a  preceding  discussion  (Circular 
163)  of  tlie  fact  that  Argentina  now  outranks  the  United  States 
with  respect  to  the  surplus  of  beef  produced  and  that  the  change 
in  relative  positions  of  the  two  countries  as  beef-exporting  na- 
tions has  occured  since  1905.  So  marked  has  been  the  develop- 
ment of  this  trade  that:  the  attention  of  the  entire  world  has  been 
called  to  Argentina  as  a  rapidly  growing  and  exceedingly  im- 
portant factor  in  the  world's  supply  of  beef.  For  many  years 
the  United  States  of  North  America  was  the  chief  factor  in  the 
export  trade  of  this  commodity,  and  an  especially  important 
factor  because  supplying  beef  of  high  quality.  Today  the  Argen- 
tine Republic  must  be  looked  upon  as  the  most  important  factor 
in  the  world's  market  as  regards  the  amount  of  surplus  beef 
sold;  and,  furthermore,  the  quality  of  her  beef  product  is  fast 
improving. 

Notwithstanding  the  embargo  against  importation  of  live 
cattle  from  Argentina  into  Gr"eat  Britain  which,  on  account  of 
foot-and-mouth  disease,  has  been  in  force  since  1900^,  aggregate 
exports  of  cattle  and  beef  from  Argentina  have  risen  from 
$8,000,000  in  1900  to  $24,000,000  in  1905  and  $29,000,000  in  1910; 
while  corresponding  figures  for  the  United  States  were  $68,000,- 
000  in  1900,  $72,000,000  in  1905,  and  $24,000,000  in  1910.  (See 
Circular  163.) 

With  only  twenty-nine  million  cattle,  as  compared  with 
seventy-one  million  in  the  United  States,  (1910) ^  Argentina  is 
in  a  position  to  maintain  her  export  trade  in  beef  by  reason  of 
the  small  population  (seven  million)  and  consequently  limited 
domestic  consumption  of  beef  in  that  country.  Whether  or  not 
expansion  of  beef  production  in  Argentina  takes  place  in  the  fu- 

1.  In  confining  this  discussion  largely  to  the  production  of  cattle  in  Argentina,  the 
writer  does  not  overlook  other  possible  sources  of  beef  in  South  America,  such  as  Uruguay,  Bra- 
zil, Bolivia,  Paraguay,  Venezuela,  and  possible  others  which,  with  the  exception  of  Uruguay  and 
parts  of  Brazil,  are  only  partially  exploited.  Operations  in  Argentina  may  be  taken  as  a  type  and 
indicative  in  a  general  way  of  the  development  which  is  likely  to  follow  in  ether  countries.  Argen- 
tina is  and  will  remain  for  some  time  to  come  the  largest  producer  and  most  important  single  factor 
in  the  export  trade  in  beef  from  South  America. 

2.  Except  a  short  period  in  1903. 

3.  The  U.  S.  Census  Bureau  estimates  the  number  of  cattle  in  the  United  States  in  round 
numbers  at  64  million,  April  15,  1910,  and  67  to  69  million,  June  1,  1910.  The  U.  S.  Dept.  of 
Agriculture  estimates  71  million,   Jan.   1,   1910,  and  60  million,   Jan.   1,  1912. 


ture  will  depend  largely  upon  market  conditions.  In  the  United 
States,  on  the  other  hand,  a  rapidly  growing  population  of  92 
million  renders  it  doubtful  whether  our  production  of  beef  will 
equal  our  demand  unless  a  rapid  expansion  of  the  cattle-raising 
industry  occurs  in  the  near  future,  which  is  improbable. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  not  only  that  the  condition  and 
possibilities  of  beef  production  in  Argentina  have  a  vilal  bear- 
ing upon  our  beef  trade  in  foreign  markets,  but  also  that  the 
Republic  even  may  become  a  competing  factor  in  the  beef  supply 
of  our  own  country.  Recognizing  [he  importance  of  this  factor, 
the  author,  on  behalf  of  this  experiment  station,  made  a  thoro 
investigation  and  personal  inspection  of  the  beef-cattle  industry 
in  Argentina,  upon  which  the  following  statements  are  based. 

Natural  Advantages  for  Cattle  Raising 

Cattle  raising  for  beef  in  Argentina,  especially  in  the  tem- 
perate zone,  is  a  much  more  favored  industry  than  in  the  United 
States.  The  climate  makes  is  possible  for  Ihe  entire  life  of  cattle 
to  be  spent  out  of  doors  without  shelter  and  generally  without 
shade  of  any  kind.  Alfalfa  grows  most  luxuriantly,  and  the 
suitability  of  a  very  large  acreage  for  the  growth  of  that  crop 
and  of  other  nutritious  indigenous  and  introduced  legumes  and 
grasses,  together  with  cheap  land  and  labor,  makes  it  possible  to 


Fig'.  1.    Baled  Alfalfa  IN  THE  Stack 


produce  beef  cheaply.  To  any  one  unacquainted  with  the  pos- 
sibilities of  the  country,  the  degree  of  fatness  which  the  cattle 
acquire  on  grass  or  alfalfa  alone  is  a  marvel.  Corn  feeding  as  a 
supplement  to  pasture  for  beef  production  is  extremely  rare. 
Beef-making  in  Argenlina  at  present  therefore  is  practically  a 
strict  pasture  proposition. 

There  is  quite  an  extensive  area  well  suited  to,  and  at  pres- 
ent partially  used  for.  the  growing  of  corn,  but  as  yet,  and 
probably  for  some  years  lo  come,  this  product  will  be  either 
exported  or  used  for  horse,  dairy  cow,  and  pig  feeding.  Only 
the  flint  varieties  are  grown  generally.  If  the  time  ever  comes 
when  slaughterers  will  pay  a  sulTiciently  high  premium  for  corn- 
fed  beef,  it  is  believed  the  country  can  produce  ample  for  this 
purpose. 

Quality  of  Cattle 

One  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the  recent  development 
of  beef  production  in  Argentina  is  the  great  improvement  in 
quality  or  breeding  of  the  cattle.  Many  Argentine  estancieros 
have  spared  no  trouble  nor  expense  in  effecting  improvement  of 
the  common  slock  of  the  country.     This  has  been  accomplished 


FiG;  2.    An  Argentine-bked  Shorthorn  Bull  that  Would  Find  Favor 
IN  THE  Show  Rings  op  any  Country 


6 

chiefly  by  importations  of  high  class  pedigreed  beef  and  dairy 
cattle  from.  Great  Britain.  It  is  an  historical  fact  that  the  cattle 
breeders  of  Argentina,  and  more  especially  the  breeders  of  regis- 
tered beef  cattle,  have  bought  the  best  that  Great  Britain  has  pro- 
duced, without  much  reference  to  their  cost. 

In  the  herdbook  of  the  Argentine  Rural  Society  in  1909 
there  had  been  registered  about  50,000  pedigreed  cattle  of  beef 
breeds,  some  4,000  of  which  were  imported;  and  not  all  pedi- 
greed cattle  are  registered  in  the  Rural  Society's  book.  During 
the  period  from  1880  to  1907,  16,150  pedigreed  cattle  were  im- 
ported into  Argentina,  14,624  of  which  were  brought  from  the 
United  liingdom;  and  in  the  two  years  1907  to  1909  over  9000 
head  were  imported  from  England  alone.^ 

The  extension  of  fencing  has  been  an  important  factor  in 
making  systematic,  selective  cattle  raising  possible.  At  present, 
in  place  of  the  old  native  cattle,  estancias  are  stocked  with 
mestizo  (half  breeds),  and  in  many  cases  more  highly  im- 
proved slock.  In  several  instances  large  beef  herds  were  seen 
which  were  practically  pure  bred.     Shorthorns  (more  frequent- 


FlG 


.    Ax  Lmi^okted  ShohthoHxN  Bull  Doing  Sehvice  l\  the  Ahgentlxe. 

ESTANCIEROS    HaVE  BOUGHT  THE  BeST  THAT  GrEAT  BRITAIN  HaS 

Produced,  Without  Much  Reference  to  Their  Cost 

1.     Census  of  the  Nation:    .Stock  Breeding  and  Agriculture  in  1908^  ,,Vol.  3, -pp.  97,  371. 


ly  called  "Durhams"'  in  the  Republic)  are  by  far  the  most  nu- 
merous and  popular,  altho  some  fine  herds  of  Herefords  and 
Aberdeen  Angus  exist.  Of  the  50,000  registered  cattle  mentioned 
above,  about  37,000  were  Shorthorns,  10,000  Herefords,  and  2500 
Aberdeen-Angus.  A  still  larger  proportion  of  the  grade  cattle 
of  the  country  than  of  registered  animals  are  Shorthorns.  There 
is  considerable  rivalry  among  the  leading  breeders  of  pedigreed 
beef  cattle  in  their  attempts  to  bring  out  prize  winners  at  the 
live-stock  shows,  the  chief  one  of  which  is  an  annual  exposition 
at  Palermo,  Buenos  Aires. 

Of  the  cattle  produced  for  slaughter  the  best  are  sold  to  the 
frigorifh.cos,  where  they  are  either  chilled  or  frozen  for  export. 
There  is  no  absolute  standard  set  by  these  establishments  as  to 
the  quality  and  condition  necessary  for  their  trade,  as  consider- 
able variation  in  the  quality  and  degree  of  fatness  occurs,  de- 
pending upon  available  supplies  and  foreign  demand. 

Demands  in  the  way  of  breeding  and  finish  in  cattle  for 
consumption  in  the  Argentine  Republic  are  not  exacting,   and  a 


Fig.  -4.    Good  Herds  of  Herefords  are  Occasionally  Seen 

cheaper,  less  improved,  half-fat  class  of  cattle  is  slaughtered  to 
supply  local  butchers.  Discarded  cows,  youne  stock,  and  work 
oxen  in  many  instances  are  important  factors  in  this  trade. 


Fig.  5.    Map  of  Argentine  Republic,  Showing  Distribution  op  Cattle 


Distribution  op  Cattle 


A  statement  of  the  distribution  of  cattle  thruout  the  various 
provinces  of  the  Republic  will  serve  to  show  what  parts  are 
considered  best  adapted  for  cattle  raising.  In  some  instances 
these  statistics  might  be  misleading;  for  example,  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Buenos  Aires  and  other  favored  sections  of  the  country 
still  more  cattle  might  be  kept,  but  agriculture  is  more  profit- 
able. 

Table  1. — Number  op  Cattle  by  Provinces  and  Territories,  According 
TO  the  Last  Live-Stogk  Census  in  Argentina  (1908)i 


Buenos  Aires 10  351000 


Corrientes — 
Santa  Fe  — 
Entre  Rios  . . . 

Cordoba  

S.  del  Estero- 

San  Luis 

Salta 

La  Pampa  . . . 
La  Rioja  — 

Tucuman 

Chubut 


4  276  000 

3  413  000 

3  146  000 

2  639  000 

629  000 

579  000 

560  000 

465  000 

417  000 

404  000 

335  000 


Mendoza 330  000 

Rio  Negro 279  000 

Catamarca 268  000 

Chaco 265  000 

Formosa 234  000 

Neuquen 194  000 

Jujuy 113  000 


94  000 
82  000 
25  000 
12  000 
1000 
Total 29  111000 


Misiones- 

San  Juan     

Santa  Cruz 

Tierra  del  Fuego 
Los  Andes 


1.  Agricultural  and  Pastoral  Census  of  the  Nation  (Argentina):  Stock  Breeding  and  Agri- 
culture in  1908,  Vol.    1,   p.   vii. 

From  the  above  statement  and  the  accompanying  map  <  Fig. 
5)  it  will  be  seen  that  the  five  provinces  of  Buenos  Aires,  Corri- 
entes, Entre  Rios,  Santa  Fe  and  Cordoba  were  the  leading  cattle 
sections,  containing  upward  of  80  percent  of  the  cattle  in  the 
Argentine  Republic.  This  portion  of  the  country,  known  as  the 
pampa  grass  region,  is  naturally  the  most  favored  section  for 
grazing,  and  with  the  introduction  of  improved  beef  cattle  and 
of  foreign  grasses  and  legumes,  chief  among  which  is  alfalfa, 
the  industry  has  advanced  rapidly.  Cattle  growing  has  radiated 
from  the  pampa  grass  region  with  the  more  extensive  cultiva- 
tion of  alfalfa. 

The  number  of  establishments  engaged  in  the  cattle  business 
in  1908  was  estimated  at  about  222,000,  and  these  occupied  more 
than  288  million  acres,  or  an  average  of  about  1,300  acres.  Many 
individual  landholders  and  companies  own  very  large  tracts,  a 
number  of  which  range  in  size  from  10  to  50  square  leagues 
(about  75,000  to  385,000  acres;.  Some  of  the  smaller  estancias 
are  set  largely  to  alfalfa.  These  extensive  areas  are  stocked  with 
literally  thousands  of  cattle.     Besides  29  million  caltle  in  Argen- 


10 


Fig.  6.    Some  Prominent  Breeders  Maintain  Good  Herds  of 
Aberdeen -Angus  Cattle 

tina,  there  were  in  1908  about  67  million  sheep,  7  million  horses 
IV2  million  hogs,  4  million  goals,  a  half  million  mules  and 
285  donkeys.  The  total  length  of  wire  on  grazing  lands 
amounted  to  1,015,500  kilometers  (631,000  miles). ^  It  has 
been  estimated  that  the  inclosing  of  rural  properties  in  Argentina 
during  the  last  25  years  has  cost  100  million  dollars  for  wire 
alone.^ 

Slaughtering  Facilities 

The  municipally  controlled  mataderos  or  market  and  slaugh- 
tering establishment  in  Buenos  x\ires  is  creditable.  The  govern- 
ment veterinary  inspection  at  this  plant,  as  well  as  (hat  at  the 
frigorificos  and  fabricas,  is  to  be  commended  as  contrasted  with 
the  slovenly  methods  in  common  use  in  isolated  sections  where 
competent  government  inspection  is  unknown.  Ample  provision 
has  been  made  for  slaughtering  cattle  for  domestic  consumption 
and  for  export,  and  these  establishments  are  located  conven- 
iently both  to  care  for  the  bulk  of  the  city  and  export  trade  and 
to  provide  sanitary  conditions.  The  number  of  packing  houses 
owned  and  operated  by  North  American  companies  is  on  the  in- 
crease. 


1.  Report  on   "Cattle  Breeding  in  the   Argentine  Republic",   Pan  American  Union,    Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 

2.  U.    S.    Consular  and  Trade  Report,   Nov.    16,    1910,    p.    621. 


11 


Consumption  and  Export 


With  its  relatively  large  production  of  beef  and  its  small 
population,  Argentina  has  a  very  considerable  beef  product  for 
export.  It  is  estimated^  that  in  1911  five  million  head  of  cattle 
were   slaughtered,  of  which  approximately   one   million  were 


Fig.  7.    Four- year-old  Steers  Bred  in  Northern  Santa  Fe, 
AND  Being  Finished  on  Alfalfa  Pasture  in  Southern  Santa  Fe 

shipped  as  dressed  beef  to  markets  abroad,  and  a  considerable 
proportion  of  the  remainder  were  prepared  for  export  in  the 
form  of  canned  meat,  jerked  beef,  beef  extract,  and  other  pro- 
ducts. Statisticians  differ  as  to  the  per  capita  consumption  of 
meat  in  the  Argentine  Republic.  The  amount  annually  con- 
sumed per  capita  is  estimated  at  about  140  pounds.^  The 
per  capita  consumption  in  the  United  States  is  estimated  at 
185  pounds.  One  would  ttiink  from  casual  observation  that  the 
per  capita  consumption  of  meat  in  the  Argentine  Republic  is 
much  larger  than  in  the  States,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that 
the  civailable  statistics  on  the  subject  are  not  very  reliable.  At 
any  rate,  of  the  total  meat  consumed  in  Argentina  a  much 
larger  percentage  consists  of  beef  than  in  the  United  States. 
The  same  statement  would  be  true  if  for  no  other  reason  than 
the  scarcity  of  swine  products.     Relatively  speaking,  but  a  very 

1.  U.   S.    Consular  and  Trade   Kept.,   May   18,    1912,   p.    669. 

2.  Mulhall's  Dictionary  of  Statistics,  1890. 


12 

small  percentage  of  the  meat  consumed  by  the  better  classes  is 
pork  or  bacon.     Mutton  is  used  extensively. 

As  seen  from  some  points  of  view,  it  would  seem  that  the 
Argentine  Republic  is  not  favorably  located  for  developing  an 
extensive  and  profitable  export  trade  in  beef.  Closer  study 
shows  that  their  slaughtering  establishments  can  be  and  are 
located  within  easy  access  to  the  most  favored  cattle-producing 
sections,  and  also  at  or  near  seaports  having  direct  and  frequent 
communication  with  British  and  European  ports.  That  exports 
of  beef  have  increased  rapidly  is  shown  by  Table  2  and  the  ac- 
companying graphic  illustration  (Fig.  8).  The  decrease  shown 
in  exports  of  live  cattle  is  due,  as  already  stated,  chiefly  to  the 
closing  of  English  ports  against  them. 

Table  2. — -Exports  op  Beep  and  op  Live  Cattle* 


Year 


Beef2, 
lb. 


Cattle, 

No. 


1885 
1890 
1895 
1900 
1905 
1910 


64  280  000 
88  288  000 
113  .352  000 
193  492  000 
398  223  000 
580  142  000 


312 1503 
408  126 
150  550 
262  681 
90  000 


1.  From  Census  of  the  Nation  (Argentina)  1908;  U.  S.  DeDt.  of  Com.  and  Labor,  Statist. 
Abstr.  of  Foreign  Countries,  Part  3;  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Bureau  of  Statist.,  Bui.  39;  U.  S.  Con- 
sular Rept.,  Nov.,  IS,  1910. 

2.  Including  chilled,  frozen,  jerked,  and  canned  beef. 

3.  1889. 

Great  Britain  being  by  far  the  leading  buyer  of  dressed  beef, 
the  amounts  shipped  to  that  country  from  Argentina  and  from 
this  country  during  recent  years  are  significant  of  the  trend 
of  trade  conditions.  The  following  table  includes  chilled  and 
frozen  beef: 

Table  3. — Dressed  Beef  Imported  into  Great 
Britain  from  Argentina  and  United  States'* 


From 

From 

Year 

United  States, 

Argentina, 

cwts.* 

cwts. 

1905 

2  232  000 

2  582  000 

1906 

2  427  000 

2  796  000 

1907 

2  418  000 

2  692  000 

1908 

1  432  000 

3  571  000 

1909 

857  000 

4  208  000 

1910 

477  000 

4  899  000 

1911 

174  000 

6  111000 

4.  Annual  Statement  of  Trade  of  the   United  Kingdom  with   Foreign   Countries. 

5.  112  lb. 


13 


These  figures  show  how  rapidly  Argentina  has  practically  mo- 
nopolized the  British  beef  market.  Of  the  total  dressed  beef  im- 
ported by  Great  Britain  in  1911.  84  percent  was  shipped  by  Ar- 
gentina and  but  2  percent  by  the  United  Stales. 


Fig.  8.    Exports  op  Beep  and  op  Live  Cattle  prom  Argentina, 

1855  to  1910 

It  should  not  be  expected  that  the  beef  produced  in  the  Argen- 
tine Republic  on  grass  alone  will  grade  in  the  market  as  high  as 
English,  Scotch  or  corn-fed  beef  from  the  United  States  of  North 
America.  Notwithstanding  this,  beef  is  being  produced,  and  in 
the  manner  spoken  of,  that  sells  in  the  English  market  within 
two  cents  per  pound  of  the  corn-fed  beef  from  the  United  States. 
The  bulk  of  the  Argentine  product  sells  at  three  to  five  cents  per 
pound  below  North  American  dressed  beef. 


Difficulties  Surrounding  the  Industry 

Some  discouragements  confront  the  Argentine  beef  pro- 
ducer, altho  they  maybe  of  quite  a  different  character  from  those 
elsewhere  experienced.  For  example,  since  1900,  owing  to  an 
outbreak  of  foot-and-mouth  disease  and  the  consequent  supposed 
prevalence  of  this  disease  in  the  Argentine  Republic,  the  ports 
of  Great  Britain  have  been  closed  against  the  importation  of 
Argentine  live  cattle,  except  a  few  months  in  1903.  There  is 
very   little,    if  any.  of  this  disease  in  Argentina  at  the  present 


14 


time.  Ill  fact,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  a  serious  handicap  to  cattle 
raising  there,  except  as  mentioned.  Argentine  cattle  raisers  have 
even  gone  so  far  as  to  suggest  the  possibility  of  its  being  pre- 
valent in  a  herd  without  its  presence  or  effect  being  especially 
manifest.  Other  discouragements  are  found  in  the  way  of  Texas 
fever  ticks,  a  form  of  anthrax  commonly  spoken  of  as  carbuncle, 
and  tuberculosis.  Added  to  Ihese  diseases,  other  obstacles  to  be 
reckoned  with  are  droughts  and  locusts,  which  seem  to  be  more 


Fig.  9.    Not  Infrequently,  T\vo-year-old  Steers  that  Have  Been 

Largely  Developed  on  Alfalfa  Pasture  Make  Acceptable 

Killers  for  Export  Chilled  Beef 

or  less  localized.  But  notwithstanding  all  that  may  be  said  with 
reference  to  the  difficulties  encountered  in  cattle  raising,  it  is 
still  a  favored  and  favorite  industry  in  the  Argentine  Republic, 
as  indicated  by  the  number  of  men  engaged  in  it  and  their  pros- 
perous condition. 

The  Outlook 

O'h  the  whofe,  it  appears  evident  that  the  natural  advantages 
of  Argentina  enable  her  cattle  products  profitably  to  compete,  as 
they -are  aTready  doing,  vvith  the  grass  cattle  and  lower  grades 
of  native  Ix'of  produced  in  this  country.  North  American  corn- 
fed  beef,  so  long  as  the  supply  lasts,  doubtless  will  continue  to 
command'apremilim  over  Argentine  grass  cattle  in  the  markets 
of  the  world.  '''^Ttli^Argeiitina  eventually  may  develop  the  pro- 


15 

duclion  of  corn-fed  cattle,  which  her  soil  and  climate  render 
quite  possible,  it  is  probable  that  the  domestic  demand  in  the 
United  States  by  that  time  will  absorb,  and  indeed  already  ab- 
sorbs, practically  the  entire  amount  of  beef  produced  here,  thus 
rendering  our  export  trade,  and  consequently  foreign  competi- 
tion abroad,  an  unimportant  factor  in  the  industry. 

The  chief  concern  of  beef  producers  in  this  country  should 
be,  not  what  effect  will  South  x\merican  competition  have  upon 


Fig.   10.    A  Former  Oalifornian's  Attractive  Home  in  the  Argentine 

our  export  trade,  but  what  effect  will  the  possible  importation 
of  South  xAmerican  beef  to  the  United  States  have  upon  the  pro- 
duction of  be-^.f  cattle  here. 

That  corn,  and  likewise  corn-fed  cattle,  can  be  produced  in 
Argentina,  Uruguay,  and  some  other  South  American  countries 
is  an  assured  fact.  The  extent  to  which  it  will  be  fed  to  cattle, 
however,  is  limited  by  the  relatively  small  production  of  corn 
and  further  by  the  fact  that  it  is  a  new  industry  and  will  not 
gain  favor  rapidly  because  it  involves  more  cropping  and  labor 
and  considerably  more  expense. 

It  is  significant  that  the  expansion  of  cattle  raising  in  Ar- 
gentina has  ceased,  and  largely  because  grain  growing  is  prov- 
ing more  profitable  than  cattle  raising.  The  beef  product  will 
be  much  improved  but  the  supply  available  for  export  doubtless 


16 

will  not  increase  more  rapidly  than  the  combined  factors  of  in- 
creased population  there  and  among  nations  consuming  her  sur- 
plus, and  the  relative  decrease  of  beef  production  elsewhere. 
South  American  beef  surplus  will  be  in  strong  demand;  ob- 
viously countries  willing  to  pay  the  highest  premium  for  it 
will  secure  it.  Again,  the  cost  of  production  is  sure  to  increase 
with  increased  cosi  of  labor  and  land.  Under  such  conditions 
it  is  not  anlicipated  that  the  business  of  raising  beef  cattle  in 
the  United  States  will  be  menaced  permanently  by  Argentine 
competition. 


17 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alfalfa  and  Beef   Production  in  Argentina.     U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr., 
Report  No.  77.    By  F.  W.  Bicknell.     190i. 

Animal  Industry  of  Argentina.    U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Bureau  of  Ani- 
mal Industry,  Bui.  48.    By  F.  W.  Bicknell.     1903. 

Argentine  International  Trade;  Its  Development.     Pan  American 
Union,  Bui.  85.    Buenos  Aires,  1911. 

Argentine   Meat  Production  and  Export,  U.  S.  Daily  Consular  and 
Trade  Reports  for  1910: 

Cattle  raising,  old  and  new.    Bui.  118,  p.  673. 

Character  and  volume  of  the  trade.    Bui.  114,  p.  605. 

Chilled  and  frozen  beef.    Bui.  115,  p.  618. 

Gold  storage  companies.    Bui.  116,  p.  634. 

Evolution  of  the  beef  industry.    Bui.  115,  p.  620. 

Increasing  prices  and  expanding  markets.    Bui.  115,  p.  617. 

Pastoral  life  in  the  republic.    Bui.  118,  p.  673. 

Present  position  and  outlook.    Bui.  114,  p.  601. 

Rising  price  of  cattle.    Bui.  116,  p..  633. 

Stock  on  the  ranch.    Bui.  119,  p.  684. 

Summary  of  conditions.    Bui.  119,  p.  685. 

Argentine  Plains  and  Andinc  Glaciers;  Life  on  Our  Estancia  and  an 
Expedition  into  the  Andes.    By  W.  Larden,  London,  1911. 

Argentine  Republic.  Agricultural  and  Pastoral  Census  of  the 
Nation;  Stock  Breeding  and  Agriculture  in  1908.    Vols.  1-3. 

Argentine  Republic.  International  Bureau  of  American  Republics, 
Washington,  D.  C.  (now  the  Pan  American  Union),  Bui.  67. 

Argentine  Republic.  International  Bureau  of  American  Republics, 
Washington,  D.  C.  (now  the  Pan  American  Unionj.  Review  Bulletin, 
July,  1910. 

Argentine  Republic  in  1911.  A  geographic,  agricultural-zootechnic 
and  economic  summary.    Pan  American  Union.    Bui.  103.     1911. 

Argentine  Shows  and  Live  Stock.     By  Prof.  Robert  Wallace.    1904. 

Argentine  Trade  Notes.  U.  S.  Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Reports. 
Bui.  118.  p.  669.     1912. 

Argentine  Yearbooks. 

Bibliography  of  South  America,  arranged  by  order  of  dates,  in 
Mulhall's  Handbook  of  the  River  Plate,  p.  101.    1885. 

Cattle  Raising  in  the  Americas.  Pan  American  Union  bulletin, 
April.  1910. 

Handy  Guide  to  the  Argentine  Republic.    Buenos  Aires,  1909. 

Improvement  of  Herds.  Yearbook  U.  S.  Department  of  Agr.,  p.  25. 
1896. 


18 

Live-stock  Breeding  in  Argentina.  South  ximeriea  Journal,  Lon- 
don, January  14,  191 L 

Meat  in  Foreign  Markets.  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Bureau  of  Statistics, 
Bui.  39,  pp.  (35-70.     1907. 

Meat  Making  Prospects  in  Tropical  America.  John  Barrett,  Direc- 
tor General  of  the  Pan  American  Union.  Breeder's  Gazette,  Chicago, 
December  6,  1911. 

Meat  Supply  and  Surplus.  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Bureau  of  Statistics, 
Bui.  55,  p.  98.    By  Geo.  K.  Holmes.    1907. 

Modern  Argentina.    W.  H.  Koebel.    1907. 

Notes  on  Animal  Industry  of  Argentina.  25th  Rept.,  U.  S.  Bureau 
of  Animal  Industry,  pp.  315-333.    By  Geo.  M.  Rommel.    1908. 

Sketch  of  the  Argentine  Republic  as  a  Country  for  Immigration. 
Argentine  Republic,  Dept.  of  Agr.    1904. 

Story  of  an  Estancia.    By  George  Crampton,  London,  1900. 

The  Argentine  Estancia.    By  Fernandez,  Buenos  Aires,  1903. 

Through  Five  Republics  of  South  America.  By  Percy  F.  Martin. 
1905. 

Trade  and  Travel  in  South  America.    By  F.  Alcock,  London,  1903. 

Trade  Conditions  in  Argentina,  Paraguay  and  Uruguay.  By  Lincoln 
Huchinson.    U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Bui.  31. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  SEPTEMBER,  1913 


CIRCULAR  No.  169 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS  IN  CATTLE  FEEDING 


III.     A  REVIEW  OF  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


By  Herbert  W.  Mumford  and  Louis  D.  Hall 


MILLIONS 
10       20       30       40        SO       60       70       SO       90       iOO 


PEOPLE 


Ratio  of  Catti^e;  to  Popui,ation,  1870  to  1910 


Summary  ^-.»  . 

1.  Introduction. — American  beef  production  naturally  divides  into  two 
epochs,  which  may  be  termed  "Early  History"  and  "Recent  Development."  This 
division  is  marked  by  the  adoption  of  refrigeration  in  shipping  dressed  meat. 

Page  3 

2.  Early  History. — Corn-fed  cattle  were  first  produced  near  the  begin- 
ning of  the  19th  century  in  southern  Ohio  and  were  driven  overland  to 
be  marketed  in  Baltimore.  Increased  eastern  demand  led  to  a  gradual  extension 
of  the  industry  thruout  the  Mississippi  valley  until  checked  by  the  Civil  War. 

Page  3 

3.  Recent  Development. — The  extension  of  railroads  and  the  invention 
of  the  refrigerator  car  in  1868,  followed  by  the  use  of  the  tin  can  in  packing 
meat,  extended  the  beef  production  industry  to  remote  western  states  and  made 
it  possible  to  slaughter  cattle  in  the  West  and  to  market  the  salable  product 
considerably  cheaper.  Page  5 

4.  Numerical  Increase  of  Cattle. — Statistics  show  that  the  number  of 
cattle  on  farms  and  ranges  in  the  United  States  increased  from  20,000,000  in 
1867  to  68,000,000  in  1900,  but  that  during  the  last  ten  years  the  rate  of  increase 
has  diminished  rapidly,  and  the  last  part  of  the  decade  shows  an  actual  de- 
crease in  numbers.  Page  8 

5.  Ratio  of  Cattle  to  Population. — The  number  of  cattle  has  decreased 
but  little;  however,  the  proportion  of  cattle  to  population  was  only  75  percent 
in  1910  compared  to  84  percent  in  1890.  This  decrease  has  been  accentuated  by 
the  rapid  increase  in  population.  Page  9 

6.  Ratio  of  Beef  Production  to  Surplus. — The  value  of  the  cattle  in  the 
United  States  has  increased  $129,000,000  in  seven  years.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  decline  in  the  number  of  cattle  in  proportion  to  population  has  reduced  the 
export  of  meat  products  from  $72,435,000  to  an  almost  negligible  amount  dur- 
ing the  same  period.  Page  9 

7.  Cattle  Classified  by  Age  and  Sex. — A  census  of  the  cattle  by  age, 
sex,  and  value  indicates  among  other  facts  that  approximately  60  percent  of 
the  cows  of  breeding  age  are'  considered  dairy  cows.  Page  10 

8.  Geographical  Distribution  of  Cattle  in  the  United  States. — A  com- 
parison of  the  distribution  of  the  cattle  (other  than  milch  cows)  and  the  popu- 
lation shows  that  while  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  cattle  are  west,  more  than 
two-thirds  of  the  population  is  located  east  of  the  Mississippi  river.  Page  11 

9.  Development  of  the  Great  Cattle  Markets. — Cattle  m.arkets  develop 
in  the  wake  of  the  producing  areas.  This  is  indicated  by  the  growth  of  Chicago 
and  cities  west  of  Chicago,  as  cattle  markets,  while  eastern  cities  have  declined 
as  cattle  markets.  Page  13 

10.  Local  Sale  and  Slaughter  of  Cattle. — The  large  central  markets  are 
of  primary  interest  to  the  feeder.  Reliable  statistics  gathered  in  1903  indicate 
that  only  half  the  13,000,000  cattle  marketed  for  slaughter  that  year  were  slaught- 
ered in  large  central  markets.  Page  16 

11.  The  Passing  of  the  Range. — The  range  country  is  undergoing  a 
transition  during  which  the  number  of  cattle  is  decreasing,  but  an  increased 
production  is  promised  in  the  future.  Page  17 

12.  Mexican  and  Canadian  Cattle  Ranges. — Mexico  offers  opportunities 
for  great  development,  but  a  decade  or  more  will  be  required  to  reconstruct  the 
country  and  develop  its  latent  possibilities.  Western  Canada  is  rapidly  being 
taken  up  by  homesteaders  who  give  little  attention  to  stock  raising  at  present. 
Eventually  Canada  and  Mexico  should  become  important  factors  in  the  world's 
beef  supply.  Page  23 

13.  Beef  Production  in  the  South. — Various  handicaps  have'  prevented 
the  southern  states  from  exerting  much  influence  upon  the  beef  industry,  but 
better  conditions,  the  need  of  crop  rotation,  and  the  many  natural  advantages 
for  stock  raising  are  now  tending  to  promote  the  southern  cattle  industry. 
II'''  •  Page  26 

Note. — This  is  the  third  of  a  series  of  circulars  dealing  with  economic  fac- 
tors in  cattle  feeding.  (I.  Relation  of  the  United  States  to  the  World's  Beef  Sup- 
ply. II.  Argentina  as  a  factor  in  International  Beef  Trade.)  Following  publica- 
tions will  treat  of  cattle-feeding  conditions  in  the  corn  belt,  and  cattle  feeding  in 
its  relation  to  farm  management  and  soil  fertility. 


A  REVIEW  OF  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES 

By  Herbert  W.  Mumford,  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry,  and 
Louis  D.  Hall,  Assistant  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry 

One  hundred  years  have  elapsed  since  beef-cattle  production  be- 
came a  prominent  feature  of  American  agriculture.  A  study  of  the 
tendencies  that  have  marked  the  development  of  the  industry  dur- 
ing* that  period  throws  much  light  upon  present  and  prospec- 
tive conditions  with  which  the  cattle  feeder  has  to  deal.  In  this 
brief  sketch,  general  developments  only  can  be  considered,  and  the 
more  recent  decades  will  receive  chief  attention. 

Two  comparatively  distinct  periods  constitute  the  history  .of  beef 
production  in  this  country.  Up  to  the  Civil  War,  cattle  feeding  ac- 
companied general  agriculture  in  its  gradual  extension  westward 
thru  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  valleys.  At  the  same  time,  the  graz- 
ing industry  spread  from  Texas  over  the  great  western  plains.  Im- 
mediately after  the  war  an  enlarged  beef  demand  in  the  East,  to- 
gether with  improved  facilities  for  the  transportation  of  cattle  and 
distribution  of  beef,  stimulated  the  production  and  marketing  of 
beef  cattle  and  marked  the  beginning  of  modern  conditions.  The 
general  divisions  of  this  review,  therefore,  may  be  designated  as 
the  "Early  History"  and  the  "Recent  Development"  of  the  beef 
industry. 

EARLY  HISTORY 

Pioneers  from  the  Allegheny  region,  and  especially  from  the 
Virginias,  introduced  the  grazing  and  corn  feeding  of  beef  cattle 
into  the  valleys  of  southern  Ohio  and  northwestern  Kentucky  near 
the  beginning  of  the  19th  century.  In  1805  the  first  fat  cattle  were 
driven  by  Felix  Renick  from  the  then  new  country  of  the  Scioto 
valley,  Ohio,  350  miles  eastward  across  the  Alleghenies  to  Balti- 
more, where  they  found  a  profitable  market.  During  the  next  de- 
cade the  trailing  of  cattle  was  extended  to  Philadelphia  and  New 
York.  The  establishment  of  an  outlet  and  the  growth  of  the  east- 
ern demand  for  beef  stimulated  the  cattle  business  in  the  Ohio 
valley  region  and  gradually  extended  it  westward  over  Kentucky, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois.  Until  the  early  fifties,  it  was  customary  to 
take  cattle  to  market  on  foot.  In  many  instances,  this  meant  a 
drive  of  a  thousand  miles,  requiring  ten  to  twelve  weeks.  Indeed 
it  was  not  uncommon  for  cattle  to  be  driven  to  the  large  eastern 
cities  from  points  as  far  west  as  Iowa  and  as  far  south  as  Texas. 


One  of  the  first  shipments  of  cattle  by  rail  from  Kentucky  to 
eastern  markets,  made  in  1852,  is  described  by  the  shipper  as  fol- 
lows :  "One  week  was  consumed  in  driving  the  cattle,  100  in  num- 
ber, from  the  neighborhood  of  Lexington,  Kentucky,  to  Cincinnati. 
Here  they  were  loaded  in  box  cars  and  shipped  by  rail  to  Cleveland, 
whence  they  were  taken  by  steamboat  to  Buffalo.  After  a  stay  of 
several  days  at  Buffalo,  the  animals  were  driven  to  Canandaigua, 
New  York ;  thence  were  hauled  in  immigrant  cars  to  Albany,  where 
they  were  unloaded  in  the  freight  house.  After  spending  two  days 
in  a  feed  yard  near  Albany,  the  stock  was  taken  by  boat  to  New 
York.  The  freight  on  these  cattle  from  Cincinnati  to  Buffalo  was 
at  the  rate  of  $120  per  car  and  the  total  expense  from  Kentucky  to 
New  York  was  $14  per  head."  About  1855  shipments  by  rail  were 
made  from  Indiana  to  New  York,  and  in  the  same  year  began  the 
shipment  of  cattle  from  Chicago.  The  westward  extension  of  rail- 
roads during  the  next  decade  resulted  in  a  proportionate  increase 
in  rail  shipments  of  cattle  eastward  and  gave  rise  to  various  slaught- 
ering and  shipping  centers  in  the  Middle  West. 


1805-1815 

185a       

1815  -  1860- 

18S7  -  1865- 
1870 


Fig-  1. — RouTKS  ojf  E^ARi^Y  Shipmejnts  of  Catti^e; 


Coincident  with  the  extension  of  beef  production  from  east  to 
west  was  the  expansion  of  the  industry  from  the  Mexican  border 
thru  Texas  and  northward.  Mexicans  settHng  in  Texas  brought 
with  them  large  numbers  of  Mexican  or  Spanish  cattle  and  made 
ranching  their  leading  occupation.  The  peculiar  adaptation  of  the 
vast  prairies  of  western  and  northern  Texas  to  cattle  raising,  be- 
cause of  their  luxuriant  mesquite  and  buffalo  grass,  abundant 
streams,  and  mild  climate,  soon  attracted  large  numbers  of  stock- 
men from  all  parts  of  the  United  States;  and  by  1815  these  early 
stockmen  were  the  leading  ranchmen  of  this  section.  During  the 
next  few  decades  and  until  the  Civil  War,  the  herds  increased  with 
great  rapidity ;  but  the  outlet  for  cattle  was  restricted  by  the  distance 
from  market  and  the  lack  of  railroads.  At  this  time  they  were 
marketed  principally  in  New  Orleans,  Mobile,  and  Mexico,  while 
smaller  numbers  were  carried  by  boats  to  cities  along  the  Mississippi 
river.  The  latter  trade  was  cut  off  by  the  Civil  War,  and  this,  to- 
gether with  the  impoverished  condition  of  the  South,  virtually  de- 
stroyed the  market  for  Texas  cattle.  The  industry  was  abandoned 
to  a  large  extent,  and  cattle  became  almost  worthless,  some  chang- 
ing hands  at  $1  to  $2  per  head.  There  was  no  demand  for  many 
that  were  offered,  and  some  herds  were  abandoned  on  the  range. 
"As  an  evidence  of  the  low  value  of  cattle  in  Texas  at  this  period, 
it  is  recorded  that  a  buyer  went  into  a  herd  of  3500  steers  and  cut 
out  $600  at  $6  a  head,  and  600  more  at  $3  a  head."^ 

Statistics  of  cattle  in  the  United  States  during  the  first  two- 
thirds  of  the  century  are  almost  entirely  lacking,  and  such  as  are 
available  must  be  regarded  as  rough  estimates.  Consequently,  it  is 
difficult  to  record  the  development  of  beef  production  during  that 
period  further  than  to  outline  its  general  tendencies. 

RECENT  DEVELOPMENT 

During  the  five-year  period  following  the  Civil  War,  several 
significant  factors  combined  to  revolutionize  the  beef-cattle  business 
in  the  United  States.  Rapid  increase  in  population  and  the  devel- 
opment of  manufacturing  industries  in  the  East  and  North  brought 
about  a  new  demand  and  a  larger  outlet  for  beef.  Railroad  exten- 
sion thruout  the  Middle  West  made  possible  the  establishment  of 
central  markets  which  became  accessible  to  beef-cattle  producers  at 
long  distances. 

In  1857  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  Railroad  was  extended  from 
Cincinnati  to  St.  Louis.  Here  it  connected  with  the  Missouri  Pa- 
cific, which  was  then  under  construction  from  St.  Louis  to  Kansas 
City.  Altho  this  latter  road  was  started  soon  after  1850,  it  was  not 
finished  until  1865.  At  the  same  time  the  completion  of  the  Han- 
nibal and  St.  Joseph  between  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  rivers 

IB.  O.  Cowan,  Breeder's  Gazette,  Jan.  22,  1913,  p.  193. 


established  rail  service  between  Kansas  City  and  Chicago.  Conse- 
quently, when  it  was  planned  to  extend  the  Kansas  Pacific  still  far- 
ther westward,  the  southwestern  cattlemen,  with  access  to  both  the 
Chicago  and  the  St.  Louis  markets  in  sight,  saw  a  bright  future  for 
their  industry. 

In  Texas  and  the  western  states,  the  effect  of  improved  condi- 
tions and  better  marketing  facilities  was  marked.  The  wide  dif- 
ference in  the  market  price  of  cattle  in  the  North  and  in  the  South 
opened  a  profitable  outlet  for  the  southwestern  herds,  and  a  strong 
movement  of  Texas  cattle  to  northern  markets  soon  developed.  By 
1870  three  principal  routes  to  eastern  markets  had  become  estab- 
lished. "One  way  led  by  coastwise  steamer  to  New  Orleans,  whence 
the  animals  were  taken  northward  on  river  boats.  At  Cairo,  Illi- 
nois, the  railroad  journey  was  begun  northward  to  Chicago,  thence 
to  the  East.  A  second  route  from  Texas  was  over  a  trail  to  shipping 
points  on  the  Red  river,  whence  the  cattle  were  forwarded  on  steam- 
boats to  Cairo,  thence  to  be  shipped  by  rail  northward.  A  third 
route  followed  the  trails  from  Texas  to  feeding  grounds  along  the 
railroads  in  Kansas  and  in  regions  farther  north.  From  stations 
along  these  railroads  the  animals  were  forwarded  to  eastern  mar- 
kets."i 

The  northern  demand  for  these  southwestern  cattle,  due  to  im- 
proved methods  of  slaughtering  animals,  the  use  of  refrigeration  in 
shipping  dressed  beef,  and  the  utilization  of  packing-house  by-pro- 
ducts, increased  enormously  about  1870.  Accordingly,  the  opening 
of  a  railroad  shipping  station  at  Abilene,  Kansas,  in  1867,  marked 
the  beginning  of  heavy  shipments  of  southwestern  cattle  to  St. 
Louis,  Chicago,  and  the  East.  About  35,000  head  were  shipped 
from  Abilene  in  1867,  75,000  in  1868,  150,000  in  1869,  300,000  in 
1870,  and  600,000  in  1871.^  Some  of  the  cattle  enumerated  above 
were  grazed  and  wintered  on  the  ranges  of  western  Kansas  ready 
to  take  advantage  of  a  favorable  market.  The  severe  winter  of  1871 
put  a  check  on  this  movement.  "This  was  the  flood  year  of  cattle 
drives  from  Texas,  and  it  is  estimated  that  600,000  cattle  arrived  in 
western  Kansas  that  season.  Many  of  them  were  young  stock  cat- 
tle, and  a  large  number  of  the  steers  intended  for  market  were  in 
thin  flesh  and  could  not  be  made  fat  that  summer  and  fall  because  of 
excessive  rains  and  the  washy  condition  of  the  grass.  The  supply 
brought  forward  was  greatly  in  excess  of  the  demand,  and  in  conse- 
quence, prices  dropped.  Many  herds  were  held  on  the  prairies  un- 
til late  autumn,  waiting  for  buyers.  It  is  thought  that  300,000  of 
that  season's  drive  had  to  be  wintered  in  Kansas.    As  this  had  not 


lU.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1908,  p.  231. 

sCattle  Trade  of  the  West.    J.  G.  McCoy.     Pp.  106,  179,  225,  226. 


been  foreseen,  no  preparation  for  it  had  been  made."^  It  was  es- 
timated that  250,000  cattle  died  from  exposure  on  the  range  during 
that  winter.  During  the  following  season  only  about  300,000  head 
were  driven  north;  but  in  1873  the  trade  revived  because  of  in- 
creased demand,  and  approximately  450,000  Texas  cattle  were 
driven  into  Kansas.  Gradually  the  practice  of  taking  southwestern 
cattle  to  the  northern  ranges  of  Colorado,  Wyoming,  and  Montana 
increased,  and  continued  during  the  70's  and  8o's.  In  1884  it  was 
estimated  that  415,000  head  were  trailed:  over  this  route.  Follow- 
ing that  date,  railroads  developed  more  rapidly  and  carried  a  large 
proportion  of  the  cattle  to  northern  pastures,  and  by  1890  the  old 
trails  were  abandoned. 

Along  with  better  facilities  for  shipping  live  cattle  came  im- 
proved methods  for  transporting  dressed  beef  and  beef  products. 
The  invention  of  the  refrigerator  car  in  1868  made  it  possible  to 
slaughter  cattle  in  the  West  and  ship  the  dressed  beef  to  the  large 
eastern  cities  and  to  Europe.  Thus  the  fresh-meat  trade  extended 
over  the  summer  season  as  well  as  the  four  cold  months  to  which  it 
had  been  previously  confined.  This  invention  greatly  reduced  the  cost 
of  transportation  besides  making  it  possible  for  the  packers  to  oper- 
ate thruout  the  entire  year.  For  example,  from  Chicago  to  New  York 
in  1908  the  freight  and  other  expenses  of  the  road  on  an  export 
steer  of  average  weight  (1250  pounds)  varied  from  $4  to  $4.40, 
while  the  freight  on  the  carcass  of  the  same  animal  (700  pounds) 
was  only  $3.15,  not  including  the  expense  of  icing.  From  Kansas 
City  to  New  York  the  difference  between  live  and  dead  freight  was 
still  greater,  amounting  possibly  to  $2.25  or  $2.50  per  head.  The 
total  cost  of  shipping  a  live  steer  from  Chicago  to  Liverpool,  in- 
cluding freight,  feed,  and  attendance  is  estimated  to  have  been 
$13.60  to  $16.70,  or  considerably  more  than  double  the  cost  of  ship- 
ping the  average  weight  of  fresh  beef  yielded  by  the  animal.^ 

Fresh  beef  was  first  shipped  in  a  refrigerator  car  frOm  Chicago 
to  Boston  in  September,  1869,  but  it  was  not  until  1875  that  this  sys- 
tem became  well  developed.  About  the  same  time,  the  tin  car  was 
introduced  into  the  meat-packing  industry  and  it  contributed  still 
further  to  the  successful  shipment  of  beef  products  to  markets  in 
distant  parts  of  the  world.  The  utilization  of  previously  wasted 
by-products  for  the  manufacture  of  valuable  products  also  began  to 
receive  close  attention.  These  factors,  together  with  the  settlement 
and  extension  of  the  cattle-producing  regions  of  the  West,  the  build- 
ing of  railroads,  and  the  development  of  agriculture  and  industry 
in  general,  combined  to  mark  the  most  important  turning  point  in 
the  annals  of  American  beef  production. 

IB.  O.  Cowan,  Breeder's  Gazette,  Jan.  22,  1913,  p.  193. 
2U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1908,  p.  243. 


NuM:eRiCAi,  Incri:as^  of  Catti^e 

Statistics  indicate  that  the  number  of  cattle  rapidly  increased 
from  decade  to  decade  up  to  1900,  Since  that  time,  it  shows  evi- 
dence of  having  declined,  altho  the  figures  obtainable  for  this  later 
period  are  hardly  comparable  with  those  of  the  previous  decade. 
These  facts  are  illustrated  by  Table  i.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
number  of  cattle  other  than  milch  cows  is  approximately  60  percent 
of  the  total  number  of  cattle. 


Tabi,e  1.-Catti,e  on  I 

^ARMS  AND  Ranges,  1867  to  1912^ 

Total  cattle, 
number 

Cattle  other  than 

Increase  in  total 

Year 

milch  cows, 
number 

cattle  bj  decades, 
percent 

1867 

20  000  000 

12  000  000 

1870 

25  000  000 

15  000  000 

25 

1880 

33  000  000 

21  000  000 

32 

1890 

53  000  000 

37  000  000 

38 

19002 

68  000  000 

45  000  0003 

28 

1910 

69  000  OOQi 

47  000  000 

2 

62  000  000* 

41  000  000 

-  8.7 

19125 

58  000  000 

37  000  000 

lU.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1910,  p.  630. 

SAbstract  of  the  12th  Census,  p.  238. 

3  Estimated. 

^Abstract  of  13th  Census,  "Live  Stock  on  Farms,"  p.  316. 

^Statistical  Abstract  of  U.  S.,  191 1,  p.  155. 

Before  passing  this  table,  an  explanation  should  be  given  for 
the  two  sets  of  data  for  1910.  The  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  es- 
timates the  number  of  animals  in  the  country  on  January  i  of  each 
year,  and  in  19 10  this  estimate  was  69,000,000.  While  this  number 
is  quite  accurate,  it  is  approximate,  and  so  is  not  comparable  with 
the  more  carefully  gathered  census  figures.  The  census  report  of 
62,000,000  cattle,  while  accurate,  is  not  comparable  to  previous  cen- 
sus reports,  due  tO'  the  time  of  year  that  the  data  were  gathered.  In 
1900,  the  census  was  taken  June  i,  while  in  1910  it  was  taken  April 
15 — a  difference  of  six  weeks  at  the  season  of  the  year  when  the 
largest  numbers  of  farm  animals  are  born.  The  inaccuracy  of  di- 
rectly comparing  the  1910  census  report  with  previous  census  fig- 
ures is  shown  by  the  following  statement  made  in  an  abstract  from 
the  19 10  census  report.  After  estimating  that  from  five  to  six 
million  calves  would  have  been  born  from  April  15  to  June  i,  1910, 
and  that  probably  one  or  two  million  of  the  older  cattle  would  have 
been  slaughtered  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  the  report  continues : 
"Instead,  therefore,  of  a  decrease  in  the  total  number  of  cattle 
from  67,719,000  on  June  i,  1900,  to  61,804,000  on  April  15,  1910, 
a  decrease  of  not  more  than  three  million,  and  possibly  not  over 
one  million,  would  have  resulted  had  the  enumeration  of   1910 


been  made  as  of  June  i."  This  statement  indicates  only  a  small  de- 
crease in  the  actual  number  of  cattle  during  the  past  ten  years,  but 
this  decrease  is  significant  when  the  present  demand  is  taken  into 
consideration. 


Ratio  op  Cattivi:  to  PopuIvATion 

Altho  the  cattle  of  the  United  States  have  increased  numerically 
by  decades  up  to  the  present  time  (with  the  probable  exception  of 
the  last  few  years),  their  number  has  not  kept  pace  with  the  grow- 
ing population  during  the  last  two  ten-year  periods  (see  Table  2). 
In  1890  the  number  of  cattle  was  equal  to  84  percent  of  the  popula- 
tion, while  in  1910  it  was  at  most  no  higher  than  75  percent,  and  in- 
dications are  that  the  ratio  is  rapidly  diminishing  at  the  present 
time.  The  number  of  cattle  as  compared  with  population  is  more 
striking  when  it  is  considered  that  while  the  number  of  cattle  in  1910 
at  best  may  have  been  on  a  par  with  the  number  in  1900,  the  popu- 
lation between  those  same  years  increased  21  percent  and  there  is 
little  tendency  toward  an  abatement  in  this  rate  of  increase.  How- 
ever, the  most  recent  reports  indicate  that  the  number  of  beef  ani- 
mals is  on  an  actual  decrease  at  present. 

TabIvB  2.— Ratio  o^  Cattle;  to  Popui,ation,  1870  to  1910^ 


Year 

Total  cattle 
per  capita 

Cattle  other  than 
milch  cows, 
per  capita 

1870 

1880 

1890 

19002 

19102 

.64 
.66 
.84 
.89 
.67 

.39 
.42 
.59 
.66 
.45 

iBased  upon  Abstract  of  the  13th  Census,  pp.  24,  316;  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr., 
Yearbook  1910,  p.  630;  Abstract  of  12th  Census,  p.  32. 

2Based  upon  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  figures.  Total  cattle  per  capita  for 
1900  was  .58,  for  1910,  .75 ;  cattle  other  than  milch  cows  per  capita  in  1900  was 
.36,  in  1 9 10,  .51. 

Ratio  op  Be^pp  Production  to  Surplus 

A  natural  consequence  of  the  decline  in  the  relative  number  of 
cattle  as  compared  with  population  has  been  a  diminution  in  both 
the  relative  and  the  actual  surplus  of  beef  cattle  and  beef  products. 
Comparing  the  annual  value  of  cattle  other  than  milch  cows  with 
the  annual  value  of  exports  of  beef  cattle  and  beef  products  at  ten- 
year  intervals,  we  find  a  marked  decline  in  the  percentage  value  of 
the  surplus,  and  it  is  evident  from  the  following  table  that  in  this 
country  the  consumption  of  beef  has  practically  overtaken  its  pro- 
duction. 


10 


Tabi,e  3. — VaIvUE  of  Catti^e  on  Farms  and  op  Exports  op 
Beep  Catti^e  and  Beep,  1867  to  1912 


Year 

Farm  value  of 
cattle  other  than 
milch  cows^ 

Value  of  beef  cattle  and 
beef  exports^ 

Percent  of 

value 

exported 

1867 

$185  254  OOO 

$2  143  000 

1.2 

1870 

290  401  000 

2  693  000 

.9 

1880 

341  761  000 

31  544  000 

9.2 

1890 

560  625  000 

56  170  000 

10.0 

1900 

689  486  000 

68  407  000 

9.9 

1905 

661  571  000 

72  435  000 

10.9 

1908 

845  938  000 

55  466  000 

6.6 

19103 

917  453  000 

24  400  000 

2.7 

1912^ 

790  064  000 

14  602  000 

1.8 

lU.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1909,  p.  571. 

2Calculated  from  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Bur.  of  Statistics,  Bui.  75,  pp.  23-29. 

3U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr,,  Yearbook  191 1,  p.  629. 

4U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1912,  pp.  681,  726. 

CaTTIvE  ClvASSII'lED  BY  AGE  AND  StX 

In  Table  4  are  given  the  numbers  and  percentages  of  the  vari- 
ous classes  of  cattle  on  farms  and  ranges  in  the  United  States,  April 
15,  1910,  and  also  a  comparison  of  the  average  value  of  the  cattle  of 
the  different  classes. 


Tabi<e  4 — Catti,e  in  United  States, 

Aprii,  15,  19101 

On  farms 

and  ranges, 

number 

Percent 
of  all 
cattle 

Value 

Value 
per  head 

Calves    born   after  Jan  1, 
1910  (under 3X  mo.).    .. 

Steers   and  bulls   born    in 
1909  [3}4-lS'A  mo.) 

Steers  and  bulls  born  be- 
fore 1909   

Heifers  born  in  1909  (3>^- 
15^  mo  ) 

7  806  539 
5  450  289 
7  598  258 
7  295  880 

12  023  682 

20  625  432 
1  003  786 

12.6 
8.8-] 
12. 3J 
11.8 

19.5 

33.4 
1.6 

1  52  000  133 
347  901  174 

103  194  026 

269  160  193 

706  236  307 
21  031  774 

$  6.66 
26.66 
14.14 

Cows  and  heifers  not  kept 
for    milk,     born    before 
1909   

22.39 

Cows  and  heifers  kept  for 
milk,  born  before  1909.. 

34.24 
20.95 

Total 

61  803  866 

100.0 

$1  499  823  607 

A  V.  $24. 27 

1  Abstract  of  13th  Census,  "Live  Stock  on  Farms,"  pp.  313,  314. 


11 

Several  Interesting  facts  are  revealed  by  the  above  figures.  Al- 
most two-thirds  of  the  cows  of  breeding  age  are  designated  as  dairy- 
cows,  the  remainder  being  kept  primarily  for  raising  beef  calves. 
The  ratio  of  bulls  and  steers  to  cows  and  heifers  is  i  to  1.46.  An 
explanation  of  the  small  number  of  calves  as  compared  with  the 
number  of  breeding  coWs  is  given  on  page  8.  Unfortunately,  the 
data  are  such  that  no  comparison  can  be  made  between  the  values  of 
cattle  of  the  same  sex  at  different  ages  nor  between  the  values  of 
steers  and  heifers  of  the  same  age.  However,  a  comparison  can  be 
made  between  the  values  of  dairy  and  beef  cows,  the  former  being 
worth  almost  $12  per  head  more  than  the  latter. 

Geographicai,  Distribution  of  Catti^e  in  the  United  States 

The  accompanying  map  shows  graphically  the  relative  import- 
ance of  each  group  of  states  in  numbers  and  money  value  in  the  pro- 
duction of  cattle  other  than  milch  cows,  in  19 10.  In  addition  to 
the  data  brought  out  upon  the  map.  Table  5  gives  the  total  number 
and  value  of  cattle  other  than  milch  cows  for  the  entire  United 
States  at  the  time  of  the  last  census  and  the  average  value  per  head. 

In  the  north  central  states,  from  Ohio  to  Nebraska,  and  in  the 
region  including  Oklahoma  and  Texas  are  found  the  greatest  rela- 
tive numbers  of  cattle.  However,  owing  to  wide  variation  in  type 
and  quality,  numbers  are  only  a  partial  indication  of  the  importance 
of  cattle  raising  in  the  various  sections ;  the  value  per  animal  must 
also  be  taken  into  consideration. 

TabIvE  5. — Number  and  Value  of  Cattle  other  than  Milch  Cows 
IN  THE  United  States,  April  15,  1910' 


Section 

Number 

Average  price 

Total  value 

North  Atlantic 

2  130  000 

$16.54 

$35  234  000 

South  Atlantic 

3  029  000 

13.79 

41  760  000 

North  Central  west 
of  the  Mississipi. , 

12  320  000 

22.12 

272  538  000 

North  Central  east 
of  the  Mississipi. . 

4  990  000 

18.57 

92  669  000 

Southern  and  Gulf. . 

10  786  000 

16.28 

175  574  000 

Far  Western 

7  925  000 

22.15 

175  512  000 

Total 

41  180  000 

(Av.$19.28) 

$793  287  000 

1  Calculated  from  Abstract  of  13th  Census,  "Live  Stock  on  Farms,"  p.  316. 


12 


13 

The  average  value  of  beef  cattle  in  the  Atlantic  and  south  cen- 
tral states  is  shown  to  be  comparatively  low.  Altho  the  north  central 
states  have  only  41  percent  of  the  cattle  of  the  country  (other  than 
•milch  cows)  numerically,  the  aggregate  value  of  such  cattle  in  these 
states  is  more  than  46  percent  of  the  total  value. 

The  so-called  "corn-belt"  states — Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa, 
Missouri,  Nebraska,  and  Kansas — have  about  one-third  of  the  cat- 
tle other  than  milch  cows  in  the  United  States,  but  they  represent 
more  than  one-third  the  value  of  such  cattle  in  the  country.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  cattle  regularly  enumerated,  upon  which  the  preceding 
statement  is  based,  we  must  consider  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
feeding  cattle  that  are  annually  brought  into  the  corn  belt  to  be  fat- 
tened. Including  this  supply  of  cattle,  and  considering  their  qual- 
ity and  value,  perhaps  one-half  the  beef-producing  industry  of  the 
country  is  centered  in  the  seven  states  mentioned. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  while  more  than  two-thirds  of  the 
cattle  represented  on  the  accompanying  map  are  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi river,  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  population  of  the  United 
States  is  in  states  east  of  the  Mississippi.  In  1880,  78  percent  of 
the  population^  was  east  and  more  than  one-half  (about  55  percent) 
of  the  cattle^  west  of  the  Mississippi. 

Another  striking  comparison  is  that  of  the  manufacturing  and 
the  non-manufacturing  sections  of  the  United  States.  At  the  time  of 
the  last  census,  more  than  one-half  of  the  population  was  found  in 
less  than  one-seventh  of  the  area  of  the  country,  viz.,  the  states  east 
of  the  Mississippi  and  north  of  the  Ohio  and  Potomac  rivers.  This 
portion  of  the  country  produces  more  than  three-fourths  of  our 
manufactured  products,  pays  more  than  four-fifths  of  all  salaries 
and  wages,  and  contains  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  assessed  value 
of  all  real  and  personal  property.  It  is  therefore  the  great  consum- 
ing area  of  the  country;  but  (east  of  Chicago)  it  has  less  than  one- 
eighth  of  the  beef  cattle  and  less  than  one-fifth  of  all  cattle  of  the 
United  States.  In  other  words,  seven-eighths  of  the  beef  cattle  and 
four-fifths  of  all  cattle  are  produced  west  and  south  (principally 
west)  of  the  manufacturing  district.  Consequently,  there  has  been 
an  enormous  movement  of  cattle  from  west  to  east  to  supply  the  de- 
mand for  beef  in  the  more  densely  populated  sections.  This  has 
brought  about  the  establishment  of  the  great  cattle  markets  at  Chi- 
cago, the  "Missouri  river  points" — Kansas  City,  St.  Louis,  Omaha, 
St.  Joseph,  Sioux  City  and  South  St.  Paul. 

Dl^VDLOPMENT  OF  THE  GrEAT  CaTTEE  MARKETS 

A  study  of  the  growth  of  the  important  market  centers  sheds 
much  light  on  the  development  of  the  cattle-raising  industry  of  the 

lAbstract  of  the  12th  Census,  pp.  32,  33. 

2U.  S,  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Bui.  64,  p.  57. 


14 

country.  Comparing  the  annual  receipts,  in  round  numbers,  at  ten- 
year  intervals  since  1870,  we  have  the  summary  given  in  Table  6. 
(The  markets  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  receipts  for  1910.) 

A  study  of  these  market  records  shows  clearly  the  extent  to 
which  western  slaughtering  has  replaced  the  shipment  of  live  cat- 
tle to  eastern  cities.  The  markets  at  Chicago,  Missouri  river 
points,  St.  Paul,  Ft.  Worth,  and  Denver  have  grown  rapidly,  while 
a  number  of  eastern  markets  (e.g.,  Buffalo  and  Pittsburg)  show 
a  marked  falling  off. 

The  recent  development  of  the  far-western  markets  Denver 
and  Ft.  Worth  is  especially  noteworthy.  Large  markets  are  also 
being  developed  at  Seattle,  Portland  (Oregon),  and  San  Francisco 
which  will  contribute  still  further  toward  local  slaughter  in  the 


Tabi^e  6 Number 

oif  CattivB  Received  at 

Large  Markets, 

1870  TO 

19101 

Market 

18702 

18802 

18902 

19003 

1910* 

Chicago 

533  000 

1  382  000 

3  484  000 

2  729  000 

3  053  000 

Kansas  City. 

121  0005 

245  000 

1  472  000 

1  970  000 

2  230  000 

Omaha 

87  000«  ^ 

607  000' 

828  000 

1  223  000' 

St.  L/ouis  ... 

234  C007  8 

346  0007 

511  000^ 

698  000* 

1  207  000' 

Ft.  Worth... 

90  000 

785  GOO 

New  York. . . 

683  000* 

674  000* 

630  000* 

615  000 

St.  Joseph  . . 

28  000 7  9 

380  000 

510  000 

St.  Paul 

32  0001 0 

93  000 

176  000 

482  000 

Sioux  City  .  . 

55  000^  10 

167  000' 

300  000 

411  000 

Denver 

54  000'  " 

114  000' 

240  000 

383  000 

Indianapolis. 

119  000^  12 

133  000'' 

120  000' 

140  000 

309  000 

Cincinnati. . . 

128  000*  8 

189  000* 

172  000* 

177  000 

257  000 

Buffalo 

654  000 

220  000 

Pittsburg  . . . 

251  000 

150  000 

Baltimore  .  . . 

163  000 

142  000 

Philadelphia 

165  000 

Jersey  City. . 

228  000 

Boston 

227  000* 

168  000* 

178  000* 

128  000 

L/Ouisville . .  . 

94  000* 

126  000 

Portland,  Or. 

90  000 

Seattle 

10  000*3 

19  00013 

55  000*3 

Note. — Omissions  in  this  table  are  due  tO'  the  fact  that  statistics  were  not 
obtainable,  either  because  a  market  had  not  been  established  or  because  no 
records  were  kept. 

1  Calves  not  included. 

2Bureau  An.  Indus.  Rept.,  1897,  pp.  209-239. 

3  Bureau  An.  Indus.  Rept.,  1900,  pp.  569-583- 

^Chicago  Drover's  Journal  Yearbook,  191 1.    Stock  Yards  Co.  reports. 

51871. 

61884. 

^Includes  calves. 

81874. 

"Statistical  Abstract  of  U.  S.,  1910,  p.  495. 

10 1888. 

11 1886. 

121878. 

13  Estimated. 


15 

West  and  thereby  diminish  the  relative  number  of  live  cattle  shipped 
eastward.  The  factors  that  have  brought  about  this  great  move- 
ment, chief  of  which  are  railroad  development,  the  refrigerator 
car,  and  the  tin  can,  have  been  discussed  in  a  preceding  paragraph 
(page;). 

In  order  to  comprehend  the  relative  importance  of  the  markets 
included  in  the  foregoing  table  and  the  relation  of  each  market  to 
the  cattle  trade  of  the  country,  we  should  know,  not  only  the  num- 
ber of  cattle  received,  but  also  the  number  shipped  out  and  the 
proportion  of  stockers  and  feeders  in  the  shipments.  Table  7  is 
therefore  presented  to  give  these  facts,  so  far  as  they  are  available, 
regarding  the  various  markets. 

Comparing  the  large  markets  as  slaughtering  centers,  according 
to  the  number  of  cattle  actually  utilized,  as  shown  in  the  first  col- 
umn, we  find  that  they  rank  in  approximately  the  same  order  as 
when  compared  on  the  basis  of  gross  receipts,  with  a  few  marked 
exceptions.  Chicago  ranks  first  and  is  followed  by  the  five  Mis- 
souri river  points,  together  with  Ft.  Worth  and  St.  Paul,  after 
which  come  Cincinnati,  Denver,  and  Indianapolis. 

St.  Paul  shows  the  largest  proportion  of  shipments  to  receipts. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  many  range  cattle  enroute  to  Chicago 

Tabi^e  7. — Receipts  at  and  Shipments  from  L^arge  Markets  in  1910 


Market 

Net  receipts^ 

Proportion  of 

shipments  to 

gross  receipts, 

Stockers 

and  feeders 

shipped 

Proportion  of 

stockers  and 

feeders  to  ship- 

percent 

ments,  percent 

Chicag'o 

1  741  000 
1  286  000 

43 
42 

406  000 
^631  000 

31 

Kansas  City 

66 

St.  Ivouis 

897  001) 

31 

101  000 

27 

Omaha     

799  000 

35 

432  000^ 

102 

Ft.  Worth 

529  000 

33 

St.  Joseph 

355  000 

30 

59  000 

38 

Sioux  City 

200  000 

51 

178  000 

84 

Cincinnati 

188  000 

27 

Indianapolis  .... 
St.  Paul 

169  000 
146  000 

130  000 

45 
70 

251=000 

71 

Denver^ 

Buffalo 

Pittsburgh 

lyouisville 

63  000 

50 

42  000* 

66 

New  York3     

Jersey  City^ 

Baltimore  

63  000 

55 

Boston 

61  000 

52 

Portland,  Ore 

51  000 

43 

Seattle^ 

San  Francisco^  . . 

iReceipts  minus  shipments. 
2Includes  feeders  driven  out. 
3  Statistics  not  obtainable. 
^Estimated. 


16 

are  fed  in  transit  at  that  market.  Sioux  City  and  Denver  like- 
wise are  feeding  points  for  cattle  enroute  to  northern  ranges,  and 
thus  record  large  percentages  of  cattle  shipped.  Of  the  larger 
markets  Chicago  shows  the  greatest  proportion  of  shipments  to 
receipts,  due  to  the  number  of  feeding  cattle  handled  and  the 
extensive  movement  of  fat  cattle  from  that  market  to  eastern 
cities  that  formerly  included  many  export  cattle.  Kansas  City 
also  ships  over  two-fifths  of  the  cattle  it  receives.  In  general, 
the  proportion  of  shipments  to  receipts  at  the  different  markets 
varies  from  one-third  to  two-thirds. 

Referring  to  the  last  two  columns,  it  is  observed  that  Kansas 
City  outrivals  all  other  centers  as  a  feeder  market,  both  as  to  the 
actual  number  shipped  out  and  the  proportion  of  feeders  to  total 
shipments.  Omaha  occupies  second  place  and  is  regarded  by  corn- 
belt  cattlemen  as  a  rapidly  growing  feeder  point.  The  excess  of 
feeders  over  total  shipments  at  Omaha  is  due  to  the  large  number 
of  feeding  cattle  driven  out  of  the  yards  and  not  counted  in  ship- 
ments. As  to  the  actual  number  of  feeders  shipped,  Chicago  ranks 
close  to  Omaha,  altho  less  than  one-third  of  the  cattle  shipped  from 
Chicago  are  feeders.  The  high  percentage  of  feeders  in  ship- 
ments from  Sioux  City,  Denver,  and  St.  Paul  consists  largely  of 
cattle  fed  in  transit,  as  explained  above. 

The  source  of  receipts  and  the  destination  of  shipments  are  re- 
corded at  the  Kansas  City  market.  In  1907,  59  percent  of  the 
cattle  were  consigned  from  Kansas,  15  percent  from  Oklahoma, 
II  percent  from  Missouri,  6  percent  from  Texas,  and  the  re- 
mainder principally  from  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  and  Nebraska. 
Of  the  cattle  shipped  in  the  same  year,  12  percent  went  to  Missouri 
(besides  St.  Louis),  10  percent  to  Kansas,  5  percent  to  Illinois  (be- 
sides Chicago),  4  percent  to  Iowa,  15  percent  to  various  large  mar- 
kets, and  the  remainder  to  various  other  states.^ 

Export  trade  accounts  for  the  comparatively  small  net  receipts 
of  some  of  the  eastern  markets  whose  gross  receipts  are  large. 
The  importance  of  these  markets  as  points  of  export  is  illustrated 
by  the  figures  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1908,  when  the  cities 
of  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Portland  (Maine), 
and  Detroit,  named  in  order  of  their  importance,  exported  299,000 
cattle.^  In  1910  the  export  trade  from  these  same  cities  was 
much  lighter,  totaling  122,000  cattle,  or  only  40  percent  of  the  ex- 
port trade  in  1908.^ 

LocAi,  Sai^i:  and  S1.AUGHTER  OP  Cattle 

Altho  cattle  feeders  are  primarily  interested  in  and  affected  by 
the  large  central  markets,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  com- 

lU.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1908,  p.  234. 
2U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1908,  p.  236. 
3 Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  U.  S.,  1910,  p.  TJ^. 


17 

paratively  laro^e  number  of  cattle  are  converted  into  beef  by  local 
butchers,  and  the  influence  of  this  factor  in  the  aggregate  is  consid- 
erable. It  was  estimated  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Corpora- 
tions^ that  the  cattle  slaughtered  in  1903  were  divided  thus: 

No.  of  cattle 
slaughtered 

At  large  central  markets 6,570,000 

In  other  cities  over  50,000  population   930,000 

In  cities  and  villages  under  50,000  population 3,500,000 

On  farms  and  ranges 1,500,000 

Total  slaughtered 12,500,000 

Exported  alive  520,000 

Total   13,020,000 

Nearly  6,000,000  cattle,  or  about  45  percent  of  those  marketed 
for  slaughter  (which  includes  those  exported  alive),  were  therefore 
slaughtered  at  points  other  than  the  large  stockyard  centers ;  and 
of  this  number  5,000,000,  or  40  percent  of  the  total  number 
slaughtered,  were  slaughtered  in  small  cities  and  villages  and  in 
the  country.  In  other  words,  about  two-fifths  of  all  cattle  killed 
for  beef  in  1903  were  handled  by  local  butchers  and  farmers.  The 
Bureau  of  Corporations  also  ascertained  that  about  5,500,000,  or 
45  percent,  of  the  cattle  killed  for  beef  were  slaughtered  by  six 
companies  known  as  the  "big  packers." 

The  Passing  oe  the  Range 

A  large  part  of  the  agricultural  progress  of  the  past  has  meant 
the  extension  of  soil  cultivation  at  the  expense  of  the  grazing  in- 
dustry that  preceded  it.  Home-seeking  emigrants,  leaving  behind 
farms  that  have  been  devastated  by  poor  management,  have 
pushed  forward  continually  toward  the  most  fertile  western  graz- 
ing areas,  absorbing  or  driving  the  cattle  and  sheep  to  new  terri- 
tory, until  now  the  limits  of  the  United  States  have  been  reached. 
Large  ranches  which  formerly  sent  train  loads  of  fat  and  feed- 
ing cattle  to  the  central  markets  and  to  corn-belt  feeders  have  been 
completel}^  absorbed  by  settlers.  Formerly,  such  a  condition  meant 
the  establishment  of  ranches  in  new,  unclaimed  lands,  but  further 
extension  of  this  kind  is  impossible. 

The  effect  of  western  emigration  upon  future  beef  produc- 
tion is  a  disputed  question.  Some  regard  a  marked  shortage  of 
cattle  as  the  inevitalDle  result;  others  claim  that  the  cultivation  of 
new  lands  will  ultimately  increase  the  production  of  cattle  in  such 
sections.  However,  a  gradual  increase  in  cattle  will  not  neces- 
sarily mean  a  greater  shipment  of  beef  animals  from  these  regions 
eastward,  for  the  meat  consumption  of  these  newer  western  states 
will  increase  along  with  the  increase  of  population.     Neither  will 

iReport  of  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  on  the  Beef  Industry,  1905, 
pp.  SS-S7. 


18 

an  increase  of  cattle  mean  a  larger  beef  production,  for  the  dairy 
cow  soon  makes  her  appearance  in  large  numbers  in  the  thickly- 
populated  sections. 

From  the  foregoing  statements  it  will  be  seen  that  beef  produc- 
tion has  a  very  uncertain  future.  The  free  grazing  lands  that  re- 
main are  in  an  unsatisfactory  condition  because  of  indiscriminate 
grazing  and  a  scramble  to  secure  what  is  left  of  the  already  de- 
pleted ranges.  No  business  is  so  full  of  annoying  difficulties  as 
the  handling  of  cattle  on  the  remaining  free  ranges;  and  it  is  little 
wonder  that  stockmen  have  grasped  the  opportunity  to  quit  business 
as  quickly  as  prices  warranted  such  a  change.  It  would  seem  that 
adequate  laws  have  not  yet  been  provided  for  the  control  of  pub- 
lic range  lands. 

The  setting  aside  of  large  areas  of  the  public  domain  as  na- 
tional forest  reserves,  in  the  opinion  of  some  men  has  been 
beneficial  to  the  grazing  industry.  Thru  the  issuing  of  grazing 
permits  and  the  collection  of  fees,  the  Forest  Service  seeks  to 
show  that  "regulated  grazing  and  fewer  numbers  spell  more  ac- 
tual profit  than  over-grazing  and  hungry  cattle."^  In  the  effort  to 
prevent  over-stocking,  fewer  cattle  are  permitted  on  some  sections 
of  the  forest  reserves  than  those  ranges  are  capable  of  carrying. 

The  section  known  as  the  range  country  is  included  principally 
in  the  states  of  Texas,  Oklahoma,  New  Mexico,  Colorado,  Wyom- 
ing, Montana,  Idaho,  Utah,  Arizona,  the  Dakotas,  and  the  west- 
ern portions  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  as  shown  on  the  accompany- 
ing map.  In  order  tO'  observe  the  course  of  development  of  the 
cattle  industry  in  different  sections  of  the  West,  the  following 
statistics  are  given,  representing  the  number  of  cattle  other  than 
dairy  cows  in  the  various  states  of  the  range  country. 


Tabi^e;  8. — Number  op  Catti^e  in  Various  Western  States,  1870  to  1910 


State 

1870 

1890 

1900 

1910 

Texas 

Oklahoma . . . 
New  Mexico. 
Colorado  . . . 
Wyoming  .  . . 

Montana 

Idaho  

Utah 

Arizona 

Dakotas 

3  220  000 

375  0002 
365  0003 
780  OOO 2 
590  0002 
195  0002 
103  0002 
145  000^ 
220  0002 

7  024  000 

121  0001 

1  341  000 

1  017  000 

1  096  000 

933  000 

382  000 

384  000 

725  000 

740  000 

8  567  000 

1  544  000 
975  000 

1  333  000 
669  000 
923  000 
312  000 
278  000 
725  000 

1  808  000 

7  131  000 

1  637  000 
901  000 

1  425  000 
959  OOO 
842  000 
340  000 
327  OOO 
626  000 

1  957  000 

Total 

5  993  000 

13  763  000 

17  134  000 

16  145  000 

1I893. 
21882. 
31877. 


ijohn  H.  Hatton,  Breeder's  Gazette,  Aug.  30,  1911,  p.  329. 


19 


^^^ Ranges  Used  Ckicfl)  For  Cottle. 
^^^Rowjfcts  Used  Ck;*%  Rr  SW»«4>. 


lonMkS  Usod  Vor  Both   Cottle  avid  SHe«)>' 


IH^SJ^aBarrwi  Desert. 


Fig.  3.— L/OCation  of  the  Range  Country^ 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  above  figures  are  partly  es- 
timates and  were  made  at  different  times  of  the  year,  they  are 
sufficiently  accurate  to  represent  the  general  trend  of  conditions. 

A  marked  increase  in  cattle  is  shown  in  each  state  from  1870 
to  i8qo.  This  was  the  period  that  saw  the  establishment  and 
growth  of  the  big  bonanza  cattle  ranches  thruout  the  entire  West ; 
when  beef  cattle  "kings"  were  at  the  height  of  their  prosperity. 
During  the  next  decade  further  increases  are  to  be  noted  in  Texas, 

lU.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1908,  p.  232. 


20 


oiet  I 

b06l 


0691  mtmmm^i^^i^^mmmtmt 

«B8t 

006I  ■■^■■■■^^^^■■■■■■■■■■■■■i  O 

0681  ■■H^^^HHHI^MHIHi  g  S 

, O 

oo«i  aHH^^^^     i  <=> 

2  1- 

0«8t  a^lH^^HHBaHB      g  00 

«88I  ^^B 

w 

oiei  wmmimi^Kmmm  «,  ^ 

ooei  ■■■■■■■■i  z  ^ 

0681  ^■■^■^^^■^H  S  ^ 

Z88t  ^^iHl^  "  ^ 

.  M 

006t  ■— — ^— — 1— — ■— ■       P  ^ 


88Bt  HHlHBaiHMBHi^^^^HHl      S 


Oldl 


0161 


eesi 


,  0161 
0O6t  ^ 


0L91  mmmammm^^mu^ammammm^^^^tmB 

OOQOOQO        9        s         9        9         X        9        9        9 
.  o.  o.  Q.  o.  o  o  o        o.       o.        5        9.        «.        o,        o.        Q. 

88888f§|"     |S8'§|iii 

O  O  O   O  O  O'O  OAA  f  to  IDTftOi 

of  K  «r  uf  <f  lo"  «■  — " 


octet  ■■■■■■■■■■l^H^HHHBaM  § 


O061  ■^^■^^^■^■^■^■■■■■^i^Bi^i^^BHMBB 

: O 


^ 


2  ^ 


Z88I  ^■■IHi^B^I^^  P; 
0061  ■■^■^^■■■■^■■■^^^^^■^^■■■■■■■^iBi 


21 

Oklahoma,  Colorado,  and  the  Dakotas,  while  the  remaining  range 
states  show  a  decrease  or  remain  practically  unchanged. 

From  1900  to  1910  a  marked  decrease  occurred  in  Texas,  and 
smaller  declines  in  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  and  Montana;  all  other 
states  mentioned,  particularly  Wyoming-  and  the  Dakotas,  show  an 
increase.  These  decreases,  first  in  the  northern  range  states,  then 
in  the  southern,  were  due,  in  large  part  at  least,  to  the  passing  of 
the  four-year-old  steer.  By  marketing  stock  at  three  years  of  age, 
instead  of  four,  an  entire  generation  of  cattle  was  eliminated  from 
the  western  country.  This  fact  alone  is  enough  to  account  for  a 
considerable  falling  off  in  the  number  of  cattle  even  tho  the  yearly 
calf  crops  were  increasing  in  size.  It  should  also  be  kept  in  mind 
that  considerable  shifting  of  stock  from  one  state  to  another  was 
constantly  taking  place  in  the  range  country.  Consequently,  a  de- 
crease in  one  state  would  be  practically  balanced  by  an  increase 
in  another.  However,  it  appears  from  these  figures  that  the  recent 
tendency  has  been  toward  liquidation  of  cattle  on  the  southwest- 
ern ranges,  while  in  the  Northwest  as  a  whole  the  number  of 
cattle  has  remained  practically  at  a  standstill.  This  decrease  is  made 
more  evident  when  it  is  considered  that  the  maximum  number  of 
cattle  in  these  western  states  was  reached  in  1906,  when  the  total 
number  was  estimated  at  1 8,05 7,000.     Since  that  date,  there  has 

1870   ■■■■■■■i  5,993,000 

1890   ■^^^^^^^^^^^^■■B  13.763,000 

1895  wmmmmtmmmmm^^am  11.359.000 

I9O0  m^a^^^K^t^^^^a^^m^mmmm^  17,134,000 

1901    ■■^^■■■■■■^■■■■■^^■■l  15,955.000 

1902  ^mmmmmmm^mmmmmm^^^mm  16.712,000 

1903  ^^^^^■■■■■■■^^■■■^^H  16.518.000 

1904  ^^^^■■■■I^I^HH^^^HIHHH  16.736.000 

1905  ■^^■■^■■^^^^■■■■■^■H  16,722,000 

1906  ■■^^^^^■■■^■^■■■^■IHI^^H  18.057.000 

1907  ^^^m^^^^^^ai^^^^K^^mamm  17.190,000 

1908  ■■^■■^■^^■I^H^^H^^HHHHIHI  i:^088,ooo 

1909  ■■■^^^^^^■■■■i^^^^^^H  16,350.000 

1910  ■^^^■^■^^^^^■■■■■^^■■i  16,145,000 

Fig.  S. — Aggrejgate;  Number  ok  Catti^e;  in  Various  "Western  States, 

1870  TO  1910 


22 

been  a  gradual  decrease  in  numbers,  but  not  a  corresponding  de- 
crease in  the  amount  of  beef  produced. 

It  is  a  prevalent  belief  of  those  who  are  in  a  position  to  judge, 
that  the  number  of  range-breeding  cattle  has  recently,  and  is  now, 
diminishing.  Opinions  as  to  future  developments  differ  widely 
and  are  influenced  largely  by  local  conditions.  Homesteaders  who 
begin  operations  under  adverse  conditions  in  some  sections  of 
the  range  country  will  require  a  number  of  years  before  they  will 
be  enabled  to  produce  enough  cattle  to  equal  the  number  they  dis- 
place. In  some  localities  farming  is  restricted  to  valleys  and  other 
limited  areas  capable  of  irrigation  or  the  growing  of  special  crops, 
leaving  large  areas  of  open  range  lands  of  the  poorer  grade.  Un- 
der proper  management,  these  remaining  range  lands  are  capable 
of  a  larger  production  than  they  are  at  present  yielding.  In  still 
other  sections,  extensive  areas  unsuited  to  any  purpose  but  graz- 
ing await  more  efficient  management.  Speaking  of  the  western 
range  as  a  whole,  the  writers  believe  that  within  a  few  years,  if 
not  in  the  more  immediate  future,  the  failure  of  farming  ventures 
in  many  range  districts,  the  value  to  be  derived  from  a  small  drove 
of  cattle  on  a  well-established  farm  by  the  utilization  of  otherwise 
wasted  roughage,  the  enclosure,  conservation,  and  more  efficient 
management  of  private  and  public  ranges,  the  demand  for  milk 
and  beef  in  growing  western  cities,  and  the  demand  for  feeding 
cattle  in  the  corn-belt  will  result  in  an  expansion  of  cattle  raising 
in  the  range  district;  provided,  of  course,  present  market  prices 
continue,  and  judging  from  the  present  demand  this  seems  probable. 

Altho  the  receipts  of  range  cattle  at  large  markets  have  been 
quoted  to  depict  range  conditions,  they  are  not  a  correct  criterion 
of  present  conditions.  Quite  naturally  the  increase  in  the  western 
population  and  the  growth  of  such  markets  as  Omaha,  Ft.  Worth, 
Denver,  and  Portland,  have  reduced  the  number  of  range  cattle 
annually  received  at  Chicago  and  other  older  markets.  It  is 
readily  seen  that  the  somewhat  gradual  decrease  in  range-cattle 
receipts  at  Chicago  from  886,000  in  1890  to  376,000  in  1910  has 
been,  in  large  part,  the  result  of  the  increase  of  population  and 
the  growth  of  slaughtering  centers  thruout  the  range  country. 
Figures  which  might  be  quoted  from  various  western  markets  in 
no  way  take  into  account  the  cattle  which  are  slaughtered  in  small 
outlying  towns  and  are  used  locally  to  supply  the  rapidly-increas- 
ing population  in  many  of  the  newer  sections  of  the  western  coun- 
try. With  the  settlement  of  the  western  range  lands  by  the  small 
grain  farmers,  there  is  a  growing  tendency  to  utilize  a  part  of  the 
crop  in  fattening  cattle  for  local  markets.  This  may  seem  a  small 
factor  in  any  one  section  of  the  West,  but  taken  in  the  aggregate 
for  many  states,  it  becomes  a  large  factor  in  the  disposal  of  west- 
ern cattle.  It  is  not  argued  that  there  has  been  no  reduction  in  the 
number  of  cattle  in  the  United  States,  or  even  in  the  West.  How- 
ever, "the  passing  of  the  range"  is  many  times  used  with  too  much 


emphasis, — and  well  might  it  continue  to  be  so  used  if  it  would  en- 
courage a  larger  production  of  cattle.  Might  it  not  better  be  said 
that  the  rapid  increase  in  population,  rather  than  the  decrease  in 
cattle,  has  been  the  chief  factor  in  bringing  about  the  present  de- 
mand for  meat,  and  that  because  of  this  condition  the  demand  will 
continue  to  grow,  and  this  should  stimulate  a  larger  beef  production. 

Me^xican  and  Canadian  Catti^e  Ranges 

In  attempting  to  forecast  the  future  cattle  supply  of  the  West, 
the  regions  beyond  our  southwestern  and  northwestern  boundar- 
ies must  be  taken  into  consideration.  Defining  the  range  country, 
Mr.  Frank  Hastings  has  said:  "The  great  bulk  of  the  American 
continent  lying  west  of  the  98th  meridian,  with  large  tracts  m 
Canada  for  its  northern  portion  and  greater  still  in  Mexico  for  its 
southern  areas,  may  properly  be  called  the  range." ^ 

Mexico  has  as  yet  developed  the  production  of  cattle  only  to  a 
small  extent,  and  her  significance  as  a  factor  in  cattle  raising  lies 
in  her  latent  possibilities.  The  following  is  quoted  from  Mr. 
Frank  J.  Hagenbarth  of  Utah,  who  developed  the  great  Palomas 
ranch  in  Chihuahua.^  "The  greater  part  of  the  area  of  Mexico 
is  above  the  tick  line  and  all  the  plateaus  leading  to  the  Sierra 
Madre  mountains  are  ideal  for  cattle-breeding  purposes.  Only  the 
river  bottoms  and  the  coast  country  produce  the  bane  of  the  cat- 
tle industry,  the  tick.  The  whole  country  grows  Para  grass  in 
profusion.  It  is  a  marvelous  feed,  equal  to  the  bunch  grass  of 
Montana,  succulent  and  highly  nutritious.  The  states  of  Sonora, 
Coahuila,  Durango,  Sinaloa,  and  Chihuahua  not  only  produce  this 
feed  in  great  quantities,  but  boast  of  an  excellent  climate.  Calves 
may  come  at  any  season  of  the  year  and  encounter  no  vicissitude. 
It  must  not  be  presumed  that  no  handicap  exists,  however.  The 
northwest  range  country  has  a  severe  winter,  while  Mexico's 
greatest  obstacle  to  cattle  raising  is  drouth.  But  this  can  be  ob- 
viated by  constructing  dams  and  storing  water  that  falls  during 
the  rainy  season.  The  present  practice,  even  on  such  properties 
as  the  Terrazas  ranches,  is  to  let  cattle  wander  anywhere  from 
ten  to  fifteen  miles  for  water,  if  they  find  it  then.  I  ha\^e  met 
few  people  in  Mexico  who  had  even  grasped  the  beef-raising  pos- 
sibilities of  the  country.  A  few  Polled  Durham  and  Hereford 
bulls  have  been  taken  in,  but  little  effective  effort  can  be  detected, 
and  any  impression  that  northern  Mexico  is  in  a  position  to  flood 
the  United  States  markets  with  cattle  of  any  kind  is  erroneous." 

Packers  report  that  cattle  purchased  in  Mexico  compare  well 
with  the  northern  United  States  range  cattle  that  reach  the  Chi- 
cago market.  Plowever,  Mexico  has  not  yet  realized  the  possi- 
bilities for  the  production  of  either  cattle  or  sheep,  and  there  can 

lAmerican  Breeder's  Association,  Annual  Rept.,  Vol.  I,  p.  208. 
SBreeders  Gazette,  June  21,  191 1,  p.  1453. 


24 

be  no  ^reat  immediate  improvement.  At  least  ten  years  will  be 
required  to  restore  the  damag'e  done  by  the  insurrection. 

That  Mexico  is  a  growing  factor  affecting  our  own  range-cat- 
tle industry  is  shown  by  the  number  of  cattle  brought  across  the 
Mexican  line  into  the  United  States  during  recent  years.  For 
example,  the  number  of  cattle  imported  from  Mexico  in  1905  was 
22,000;  in  IQ06,  24,000;  in  1907,  27,000;  in  1908,  64,000;  in 
1909,  126,000;  in  1 910,  188,000.^  These  cattle  are  grazed  on 
ranges  thruout  the  West.  They  have  been  taken  as  far  north  as 
Montana  and  even  Canada  but  are  held  principally  in  the  South- 
west until  marketable  as  killers  or  feeders. 

Conditions  in  the  Canadian  range  country  are  well  described 
in  a  recent  report  by  Hon.  J.  G.  Rutherford,  Veterinary  Director 
General  and  Live  Stock  Commissioner  of  Canada,  from  which  the 
following  extracts  are  c|uoted : 

"As  is  well  known,  the  Canadian  west  is  now  experiencing  the  same  change 
in  cattle-raising  methods  as  has  already  taken  place  in  much  of  the  country- 
south  of  the  line,  formerly  devoted  to  ranching  purposes. 

"The  ranching  industry  in  Canada  is  rapidly  passing.  In  Saskatchewan 
and  Alberta  the  handwriting  is  already  on  the  wall,  and  in  these  provinces  it  is 
only  a  matter  of  time  until  even  the  districts  still  regarded  as  unfit  for  general 
agriculture  will,  thru  modern  methods  of  dry  farming  or  by  means  of  irrigation, 
be  brought  under  cultivation.  In  the  Peace  River  country  ranching  may  per- 
sist for  a  time,  but  there,  as  elsewhere  on  the  continent,  the  settler  will  soon 
be  its  undoing  and  the  cowboy  will  disappear. 

"The  incoming  of  settlers,  many  of  them  from  the  dry  belt,  has  transformed 
large  areas  of  land,  formerly  considered  only  fit  for  ranching,  into  fertile  farms 
growing  great  crops  of  grain  and  fodder.  While  there  is  yet  much  territory  un- 
touched by  the  settler  and  on  which  the  cattle  still  range  as  formerly,  its  area 
is  being  yearly  curtailed,  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  the  free,  easy  and 
somewhat  wasteful  methods  of  the  rancher  are  gradually  giving  place  to  those 
of  the  farmer  and  feeder.  That  this  change  will,  instead  of  lessening  the  out- 
put, eventually  result  in  a  large  increase  in  the  cattle  production  of  the  trans- 
formed districts,  needs  no  demonstration.  Under  ranching  conditions,  twenty 
acres  is  the  usual  allowance  for  each  head  of  cattle,  while  the  losses  from  ex- 
posure, from  lack  of  food  and  from  wild  animals  constitute  a  heavy  drain  on  the 
herd. 

"The  close  farmers  are,  as  yet,  in  the  minority  in  the  less  thickly  settled 
portions  of  Alberta  and  Saskatchewan.  There  is  still  much  open  grazing  land 
available  and  many  settlers  let  their  cattle  run  at  large  during  the  summer,  thus, 
for  the  present  as  it  were,  combining  ranching  with  farming.  As  time  goes  on 
and  the  land  becomes  more  generally  taken  up',  this  condition  will  dissappear,  as 
it  has  already  done  in  many  districts  in  Manitoba,  as  well  as  in  the  newer  west, 
and  the  farmer  will  have  to  depend  for  his  feed  on  the  output  of  his  own  acres. 

"At  the  present  date,  while  many  of  the  larger  ranches  have  closed  out,  the 
cattle  industry  is  by  no  means  at  an  end.  It  is  true  that  many  cattlemen,  seeing 
the  inevitable  end  of  ranching,  have  been  rapidly  'beefing'  out  their  herds  by 
selling  cows,  spaying  heifers  and  disposing  of  bulls,  but  this  is  only  a  link  in 
the  chain  connecting  the  old  with  the  nev/  and  better  condition  of  the  industry. 
The  determination  to  'beef  out'  has  temporarily  increased  the  output  of  cattle 
of  range  quality,  but,  while  this  is  going  on,  the  incoming  settlers  are  stocking 
up,  not  to  return  to  the  old  system  of  selling  their  cattle  off  the  grass  in  the  fall, 
but  to  follow  the  more  profitable  method  of  finishing  beef  thruout  the  year  for 
the  good  markets,  as  is  done  in  other  progressive  countries,  where  beef  raising 
is  recognized  as  a  legitimate  and  useful  adjunct  to  mixed  farming." 


iCommerce  and  Navigation  of  the  U.  S.,  1910,  p.  161.      (Years  ending  June 
30.) 


25 

Thus  the  history  of  the  United  States  range  country  is  being 
repeated  or  even  carried  to  a  greater  extreme  in  Canada.  The 
large  ranges  are  giving  way  to  the  grain  farmer,  who  eventually 
may  and  probably  will  adopt  a  system  of  mixed  farming.  At  pres- 
ent the  country  is  short  of  breeding  cattle,  but  the  people  are  awak- 
ening to  the  opportunity  for  cattle  raising.  The  serious  side  of 
the  settlement  of  western  Canada  by  grain  farmers  is  shown  by 
the  following  report  of  the  Winnipeg  cattle  market: 


Year 
1909 

Total  cattle 
received 
170,000 

Shipped  to 
Feeding  cattle 
unknown 

Ontario 
Butcher  cattle 
unknown 

1910 
1911 
1912 

.  191,000 

102,700 

95,000 

39,750 

16,875 

825 

40,000 

unknown 

5,500 

During  this  same  period  the  export  trade  dropped  from  90,000 
in  IQ08  to  1,500  in  1912.  While  a  part  of  the  decrease  in  cattle 
marketed  may  be  due  to  a  shifting  of  demand  to  western  centers, 
it  seems  evident  that  the  liquidation  of  western  Canadian  cattle 
has  assumed  large  proportions. 

The  condition  of  the  range  industry  was  described  in  striking 
terms  by  a  representative  western  cattleman  at  the  National  Live 
Stock  Convention  in  February,  IQ08,  v/hen  he  said :  "No  one  at 
all  familiar  with  the  ranching  industry  will  hesitate  to  state  that 
it  is  in  a  condition  of  rapid  decline,  dying  as  decentlv  and  as 
quickty  as  it  is  financially  able  to  do.  It  is  not  yet  dead,  however ; 
there  were  still  in  force  in  the  four  western  provinces,  on  April 
I,  igo8,  Q-^g  grazing  leases,  involving  3,259,271  acres  divided  as 
follows:  Manitoba,  12,642  acres;  Saskatchewan,  632,493  acres; 
Alberta,  2,132,718  acres;  British  Columbia,  281,418  acres.  The 
average  area  under  lease  is  3,481  acres.  It  would  therefore  appear 
that  there  are  still  a  good  many  cattle  kept  under  the  old  condi- 
tions, even  when  the  sheep  and  horse  leases  are  taken  into  consider- 
ation." 

In  the  past,  Canada  has  been  a  large  producer  of  grain,  the 
bulk  of  which  was  shipped  from  the  country.  The  older  farming 
areas  are  alreadv  reaping  the  sin  of  such  practice — that  of  de- 
creased soil  fertility.  Canada  cannot  grow  such  a  large  variety  of 
crops,  and  especially  legumes,  as  are  found  in  the  United  States, 
and  consequently  the  up-keep  of  the  soil  is  much  more  dependable 
upon  stock  raising  than  it  is  in  the  United  States.  Upon  the 
realization  of  the  above  facts  and  of  the  scarcity  of  feeding  cat- 
tle, many  eastern  Canadian  farmers  are  turning  to  stock  raising. 
This  should  result  in  a  steadily  increasing  production  of  meat  ani- 
mals. As  with  Mexico  and  other  countries,  no  immediate  result 
can  be  expected  in  so  far  as  beef  production  is  concerned.  A  check 
in  the  slaughter  of  calves,  about  which  so  much  is  said,  would  re- 
quire from  eighteen  to  thirty  months  in  which  to  finish  these  same 
animals  as  high-grade  beef  or  to  increase  the  size  of  the  breeding 


26 

herd,  so  that  by  this  method  it  would  require  at  least  from  five  to 
ten  years  of  concerted  effort  to  bring  about  a  marked  and  permanent 
increase  in  the  number  of  cattle  marketed. 

B^^  Production  in  the  South 

The  early  extensive  beef  production  followed  the  lines  of  least 
resistance  or  of  greatest  profit  with  least  expense  of  labor  and 
capital.  It  remains  for  the  present  stockmen  to  develop  to  the 
fullest  the  latent  possibilities  of  land  once  passed  by  for  greater 
opportunity  elsewhere  in  so  far  as  beef  production  was  concerned. 
Some  sections  of  the  country  have  not  raised  large  numbers  of  cat- 
tle because  other  farming  pursuits  offered  greater  temporary  in- 
ducements. This  is  especially  true  of  the  South,  meaning  those 
states  regarded  as  the  cotton  states. 

Formerly,  cotton  offered  such  enormous  profit  that  it  was 
continually  produced  upon  the  same  land  without  rotating  with  other 
crops,  but  of  late  years,  the  invasion  of  the  boll-weevil  has  demanded 
a  system  of  diversified  farming.  The  boll-weevil  cannot  withstand 
intelligent  systems  of  crop  rotation.  To  meet  the  present  needs, 
therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  find  crops  that  will  fit  into  the  ro- 
tation and  yet  be  utilized.  With  the  natural  climatic  conditions 
and  the  thriving  forage  crops  which  will  furnish  feed  the  entire 
year,  many  advocates  of  stock  raising  have  arisen.  A  few  years 
past  all  argument  in  behalf  of  cattle  raising  was  balked  by  the 
question.  What  about  the  tick  ? 

The  Texas  fever  tick  has  been  the  ban  to  cattle  raising  in  the 
South.  In  1906  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 
inaugurated  a  movement  to  stamp  out  this  pest.  Strict  quarantine 
of  cattle  was  established  over  fifteen  states  or  parts  of  states  where 
tick  infection  was  prevalent.  During  the  seven  years  that  the  fight 
has  been  in  progress,  iQO,ooo  square  miles  of  the  original  740,000 
square  miles  of  infected  area,  or  about  25  percent,  have  been  freed 
of  tick  infestation. 

Just  what  this  war  on  the  tick  has  meant  to  southern  stockmen 
is  shown  in  the  following  digest  of  over  one  hundred  replies  re- 
ceived to  questions  addressed  to  farmers  and  stockmen  in  Missis- 
sippi :^  ' 

1.  What  were  the  approximate  annual  losses  of  cattle  from  tick  fever  in 
your  county  from  1900  to  1909  inclusive?    Answer:  18.5  percent. 

2.  What  was  the  approximate  value  of  all  cattle  that  died  annually?  An- 
swer: $2,132,370. 

3.  What  has  been  the  annual  loss  of  cattle  from  tick  fever  since  the  tick 
eradication  began?    Answer:  i.i  percent. 

4.  What  was  the  average  value  of  three-year  old  steers  in  your  county  from 
1900  to  1909  inclusive?    Answer:  2^  cents  per  pound. 

5.  What  is  the  average  price  now?  Answer:  3^  cents  per  pound.  (An  in- 
crease of  35  percent.) 

ij.  A.  Kiernan,  Breeder's  Gazette,  Feb.  7,  1912,  p.  318. 


27 

6.  Is  there  any  difference  in  the  average  weight  of  cattle  now  and  before 
tick  eradication  began?    Answer:  Yes,  19.7  percent. 

7.  Is  there  any  improvement  in  the  grades  of  cattle  in  your  county  since 
the  work  of  tick  eradication  began?    Answer:  Yes. 

8.  Do  you  use  cow  manure  as  fertilizer?  If  so,  state  the  relative  produc- 
tiveness of  land  on  which  it  is  used  as  compared  with  land  on  which  it  is  not 
used.     Answer :    83  percent. 

The  loss  expressed  in  money  terms  may  give  a  clearer  concep- 
tion of  the  havoc  played  by  the  fever  tick.  It  is  estimated  that  for 
several  years  previous  to  the  eradication  of  the  tick  in  any  of  the 
infested  areas  of  Mississippi,  18.5  percent,  or  161,000  cattle  in  the 
entire  state,  representing  a  value  of  $2,132^370,  died  annually  from 
tick  fever. 

These  statements  regarding  the  benefit  brought  to  the  southern 
states  by  eradicating  the  fever  tick  are  sufficient  to  assure  a  greater 
future  for  stock  raising  in  these  sections.  The  success  with  which 
the  eradication  has  been  effected  should  stimulate  many  more 
farmers  to  engage  in  beef  production.  The  secret  of  the  success 
is  the  dipping  tank.  The  cow  acts  as  a  carrier  for  the  ticks,  which 
are  found  in  the  pasture  upon  grass  and  weeds.  When  dipping 
is  regularly  practiced,  the  cow  fills  the  role  of  conveyor  of  the 
ticks  from  the  pasture  to  the  dipping  tank  until  at  last  the  crop 
is  exhausted.  A  second  method  of  eradication  is  starvation.  Altho 
it  requires  nine  months  to  starve  the  ticks  which  are  in  the  pasture 
awaiting  the  coming  of  the  host  animal,  this  method  can  be  used 
with  success. 

The  control  of  the  tick  has  opened  a  new  vista  for  the  south- 
ern farmer.  Not  only  is  diversified  farming  required  to  control 
the  boll-weevil,  but  also  to  build  up  the  once  fertile  soil  that  has 
become  depleted  by  continual  cropping  and  the  removal  of  the  en- 
tire crop  from  the  farm.  Consequently  successful  stock  raising  of- 
fers a  means  of  bringing  the  soil  back  to  its  normal  productivity. 
However,  the  southern  farmers  lack  experience  in  handling  stock, 
and  since  they  are  dependent  upon  negro  labor,  it  will  require  some 
time  to  establish  stock  raising  on  a  solid  foundation. 

Many  sections  of  the  South  surpass  the  corn  belt  in  being  able 
to  produce  a  greater  variety  of  crops  well  suited  to  live-stock 
production.  Cowpeas,  velvet  beans,  alfalfa,  vetches,  and  clovers 
are  deep-rooting  legumes  which  will  materially  aid  in  putting  the 
soil  in  good  physical  condition.  Shallow  cultivation  has  depleted 
the  surface  soil,  but  good  cultivation  and  the  growing  of  deep-root- 
ing crops  should  place  the  land  on  a  productive  basis  within  a  few 
years.  The  legumes  and  grasses  will  furnish  forage  the  entire  year 
where  properly  managed,  whereas  at  present  the  number  of  cattle  as 
well  as  other  animals  is  kept  reduced  below  the  carrying  capacity  of 
the  land  because  the  winter  season  is  not  provided  for.  At  present 
the  number  of  cattle  per  square  mile  in  the  South  is  far  below  what 


28 

it  is  in  the  corn  belt,  while  in  reality  much  of  the  southern  land,  due 
to  the  long  growing"  season  and  the  heavy  production  of  crops,  is 
capable  of  carrying  much  more  stock  than  could  be  carried  upon  an 
equal  northern  area. 

Not  only  can  stock  be  grown  in  this  section  of  the  country, 
but  there  is  every  opportunity  to  finish  steers  for  the  market.  Corn 
properly  tended  does  quite  as  well  as  it  does  further  north.  Cot- 
tonseed meal  of  course  is  cheap  and  readily  available.  Conse- 
quently, with  corn,  cottonseed  meal,  and  a  variety  of  legumes 
availalDle,  the  southern  cattle  feeder  has  all  the  feeds  that  the  corn- 
belt  cattle  feeder  could  desire  for  finishing  cattle.  There  seems 
to  be  no  logical  excuse  for  the  South  not  to  furnish  meat  for  the 
people  within  its  limits,  altho  at  present  large  amounts  of  high- 
priced  meat  products  are  received  from  the  northern  states. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


URBANFA,  ILLINOIS,  JULY,  1914 


CIRCULAR  No.  175 
ECONOMIC  FACTORS  IN  CATTLE  FEEDING 

IV.    CATTLE  FEEDING  CONDITIONS  IN  THE  CORN  BELT 

By  Herbert  W.  Mumford  and  Louis  D.  Hall 


0  8                4                 < 

1  1                  1 

MILLION 

i               1 

S 

i              1 

0               1 

Z              h 

4               t 

1 

1870  ■■ 

^^^^^^^ 

1890  pIB 

■■ 

1 

1910 
1911 

""" 

^^ 

^^ 

1 

1913 

■ 

1933 

■ 

i 

> 

!              4              e              8 
MILLIONS 

0               1 

I              1 

4               » 

( 

Total  Cattle  Other  Than  Miloh  Cows  in  Corn-Belt  States 


Summary 

1.  Introduction. — Seven  corn-surplus  states— Ohio,  Indiana,  Illi- 
nois, Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Nebraska — embrace  the  corn  belt,  which  is 
the  natural  center  of  beef  production.  About  one-third  of  the  cattle  of 
the  country  other  than  milch  cows  are  contained  in  the  states  named, 
and  their  value  is  equal  to  about  two-fifths  of  the  total  value  of  such 
cattle  in  the  United  States.  Page  5 

2.  RAPm  Evolution  of  the  Industry. — Twenty  to  fifty  years  ago, 
the  corn  belt  as  a  whole  was  a  combined  breeding,  grazing  and  fattening 
ground  for  beef  cattle,  but  now  it  is  so  generally  devoted  to  corn  raising 
that  little  grazing  land — consequently  few  breeding  cattle--  remain;  and 
a  large  proportion  of  the  cattle  fattened  for  market  are  purchased  as 
feeders  from  the  West  or  elsewhere.  The  number  of  cattle  other  than 
milch  cows  appears  to  be  diminishing  thruout  the  corn  belt,  and  in  some 
typical  districts  is  now  no  greater  than  it  was  forty  years  ago.       Page  5 

3.  Influence  of  Dairying. — StaUstics  of  cattle  in  corn-belt  states 
indicate  a  proportion  of  milch  cows  amounting  to  about  one-half  of  the 
total  cattle  in  the  eastern  section,  one-fourth  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 
and  corresponding  proportions  in  intervening  states.  Dairying  has  in- 
creased enormously  as  a  factor  in  the  cattle  industry.  The  introduction 
of  dairy  cattle  and  indiscriminate  breeding  has  deteriorated  the  quality 
of  beef  cattle,  and  at  the  same  time  the  actual  number  of  cattle  worthy 
of  the  name  of  milch  cows  has  increased  but  little.  Relatively  more 
steers  are  found  in  the  western  than  in  the  eastern  portion  of  the  corn 
belt.  Page  10 

4.  Fattening  Steers. — Four-fifths  to  nine-tenths  of  the  beef 
cattle  marketed  from  typical  corn-belt  localities  are  cattle  that  have 
been  purchased  as  stockers  or  feeders.  The  number  of  stockers  and 
feeders  shipped  to  the  country  from  Chicago  and  Missouri  river  markets 
shows  a  considerable  increase  by  decades.  The  fattening  of  cattle  has 
passed  largely  from  the  hands  of  general  farmers  to  those  of  profes- 
sional cattle  feeders,  and  in  some  sections  has  been  abandoned  to  a 
considerable  extent  by  the  latter.  Among  the  chief  factors  responsible 
for  this  tendency  are  relatively  high  prices  for  grain  compared  with 
those  for  fat  cattle,  increase  in  land  values,  extension  of  cattle  feeding 
operations  in  the  West,  increase  in  farm  tenancy,  and  neglect  of  soil 
fertility.  Page  12 

5.  The  Outlook. — The  undeveloped  state  of  beef-cattle  produc- 
tion in  proportion  to  population  and  area  justifies  the  expectation  of  an 
ultimate  extension  and  development  of  cattle  raising  and  feeding.  Corn- 
fed  beef  cattle  doubtless  will  continue  in  demand  by  a  class  of  trade  in 
which  the  grass  beef  of  the  West  can  not  compete.  The  grazing  lands 
of  the  West  may  be  expected  to  furnish  a  partial  supply  of  stockers  and 
feeders  to  the  corn  belt  for  many  years  to  come;  however,  an  increasing 


proportion,  and  eventually  a  large  proportion,  of  the  cattle  matured  in 
the  corn  belt  must  be  reared  there.  Page  15 

Improved  and  intensified  farming  methods,  the  introduction  of  corn 
silage,  alfalfa  and  other  forage  crops,  the  more  complete  utilization  of 
waste  roughage,  and  increased  attention  to  manure  as  a  means  of  main- 
taining fertility  v^ill  tend  to  render  cattle  production  more  practicable. 
Nevertheless,  those  upon  whom  the  cattle  feeder  is  dependent  for  his 
market  must  consider  the  increasing  cost  of  producing  cattle  and  pay 
prices  commensurate  therewith;  the  resumption  and  extension  of  beef 
production  will  come  only  as  a  result  of  higher  relative  prices  for  fat 
cattle.  Page  17 

Note. — This  is  the  foui^th  of  a  series  of  circulars  dealing  with  eco- 
nomic factors  in  cattle  feeding.  The  circulars  that  have  been  published 
are:  No.  163,  Relation  of  the  United  States  to  the  World's  Beef  Supply; 
No.  164,  Argentina  as  a  Factor  in  International  Beef  Trade;  No.  169,  A 
Review  of  Beef  Production  in  the  United  States.  The  next  circular  in 
the  series  will  treat  of  cattle  feeding  in  its  relation  to  farm  management 
and  soil  fertility. 


CATTLE  FEEDING  CONDITIONS  IN  THE 
CORN  BELT 

By  Herbert  W.  Mumford,  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry,  and 
Louis  D.  Hall,  Assistant  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Seven  "corn-surplus  states" — Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa, 
Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Nebraska — embrace  the  great  corn-pro- 
ducing area  and  constitute  the  natural  center  of  beef  production 
in  the  United  States.  As  shown  in  Circular  No.  169,  about  one- 
third  of  the  cattle  of  the  country  other  than  milch  cows  are  con- 
(ained  in  the  states  mentioned,  and  their  value  is  equal  to  about 
Iwo-fifths  of  the  total  value  of  such  cattle  in  the  United  States. 
I^'urthermore,  large  numbers  of  cattle  are  shipped  into  these  states 
to  be:  fattened  and  forwarded  to  market,  and  are  not  included  in 
\he  estimates  of  annual  cattle  population.  Corn-fed  cattle  are  the 
distinctive  feature  of  the  cattle  industry  of  the  United  States,  and 
this  circular  deals  primarily  with  problems  and  methods  of  cattle 
feeding  in  the  corn  belt.  It  is  therefore  proper  to  consider  some- 
what fully  the  trend  of  general  conditions  surrounding  the  indus- 
try in  that  section  and  the  fundamental  economic  factors  that' 
affect  it. 

Rapid  Evolution  op  the  Cattle  Feeding  Industry 

During  the  period  of  settlement  and  the  earlier  years  of  cul- 
tivation of  corn-belt  lands — a  period  extending  from  the  fifties 
to  the  nineties  inclusive,  of  the  last  century, — these  lands  gen- 
erally were  stocked  with  cows  of  beef  type ;  and  while  the  coun- 
try was  being  brought  into  cultivation,  they  became  a  combined 
breeding,  grazing,  and  fattening  ground  for  cattle.  Such  local- 
ities were  admirably  suited  to  beef  production  because  of  the 
abundance  of  cheap  grass  and  cheap  corn  they  afforded.  A  most 
vivid  and  concise  illustration  of  cattle-feeding  conditions  and 
methods  in  Illinois  about  1880  is  contained  in  the  following 
statement  quoted  from  one  of  the  most  widely  known  stockmen 
of  that  day,  Mr.  John  D.  Gillette:^ 

1  Feeds  and  Feeding,   W.   A.  Henry,   1st  ed.,  p.  389. 


6 

Cost  of  Steer  Twelve  Months  Old 

•Value  of  calf  at  birth $3.00 

Expenses  of  dam  of  calf,  chargeable  to  calf  for  one  year  as  follows : 

8  percent  interest  on  $50,  value  of  cow 4.00 

Keep  of  yearling  and  feed  of  cow  12  months 12.25 

Insurance  on  cow 1.00 

Risk  of  failure  of  cow  to  breed 1.75 

Loss  of  calves  by  death,  etc 1.00 

No  corn  fed  up  to  12  months. 

Value  of  pasture  and  keep  up  to  12  months 6.00 

Total 29.00 

Weight  of  calf  at  12  months,  700  pounds,  at  5  cents 35.00 

Profit  at  12  months  of  age 6.00 

Cost  From  Twelve  to  Twenty-four  Months  of  Age 

Value  of  steer  at  12  months  of  age 35.00 

Value  of  shock  corn,  110  bushels,  at  35  cents 38.50 

Pasture  12  to  24  months   3.00 

Interest  and  risk   2.80 

Total 79.30 

Less  500  pounds  of  pork  made  on  droppings  of  steer,  at  5  cents. .  25.00 

Net  cost  12  to  24  months. .  54.30 

Weight  of  steer  at  24  months,  1,600  pounds,  at  6V2  cents ,  104.00 

Profit  at  24  months  of  age 49.70 

Cost  From  Twenty-four  to  Thirty- six  Months  of  Age 

Value  of  steer  at  24  months  of  age 104.00 

Value  of  shock  corn  consumed  in  entire  year,  125  bu.,  at  35  cents.  43.75 

Pasture,  May  1  to  Nov.  1 4.00 

Interest  and  risk   8.32 

Total 160.07 

Less  500  pounds  pork  at  5  cents,  made  on  droppings  of  steer. . . .  25.00 


Cost  at  36  months  of  age. .   135.07 

Weight  at  36  months  of  age,  2,200  pounds,  at  7  cents 154.00 

Profit  at  36  months  of  age 18.93 


As  the  remarkable  corn-growing  possibilities  of  the  soil  and 
climate  in  the  corn  belt  became  more  and  more  evident  and  the 
demand  for  corn  grew  greater,  the  westward  movement  of  agri- 
culture naturally  stimulated  the  growing  of  corn  and,  to  a  cor- 
responding degree,  diminished  the  area  of  grazing  land.  Grad- 
ually, but  surely,  the  plow  drove  out  the  cow  until  in  the  heart 
of  the  corn  country  but  few  females  of  the  beef  type  remained. 
For  thirty  years  or  more  in  some  such  sections,  it  has  been  a 
proverb  that  "it  does  not  pay  to  keep  a  cow  a  year  for  the  chance 
of  a  calf." 

At  the  same  time  that  conditions  within  the  corn  belt  were 
tending  to  reduce  the  rearing  of  beef  cattle  there,  the  industry 
was  extending  on  the  great  breeding  ground  of  the  Southwest  and 
the  grazing  lands  of  the  West  (see  Circular  No.  169).  Thus  an 
increasing  supply  of  cheap  stockers  and  feeders  from  the  range 
was  a  further  large  factor  in  causing  the  abandonment 
of  cattle  raising  by  many  farmers,  who  reasoned — and  logically 
so — that  calves  coiild  be  produced  and  grown  more  econom- 
ically on  the  cheap  grass  lands  of  the  West  than  on  corn-belt 
farms.  Moreover,  the  attractive  opportunities  which  the  range 
country  offered  the  cattleman  induced  many  live-stock  farmers 
of  the  Mississippi  valley  to  migrate  west,  thus  diminishing  still 
further  the  proportion  of  cattle  feeders  to  grain  growers  in  the 
central  states. 

The  extent  to  which  this  change  in  conditions  has  affected 
beef  production  is  indicated  somewhat  accurately  by  the  results 
of  inquiries  that  have  been  made  on  an  extensive  scale  among 
cattle  feeders  of  Illinois  and  Indiana.  In  1902  this  experiment 
station  secured  reports  of  methods  used  by  509  cattle  feeders  in 
Illinois,  and  found  that  only  12  percent  raised  their  entire  supply 
of  feeding  cattle.^  It  was  estimated  that  only  about  15  percent  of 
the  native  steers  marketed  in  Chicago  from  Illinois  were  carried 
from  birth  to  maturity  without  changing  hands.  ^ 

The  Indiana  Experiment  Station  in  1906  investigated  the 
methods  of  929  cattle  feeders  in  Indiana,  and  reported  that  "only 
6  percent  are  really  beef  producers,  that  is,  breeding  their  own 


1  111.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Circ.  No.  88,  p.   1. 

2  111.    Agr.    Exp.   Sta.   Circ.   No.    79,   p.   6. 


N 

r^ 

^^^ 

/ 

i 

o 

/ 

f^       1 

V 

tf> 

(  5 

< 

f    M 

(A 

1 

1      GO 

2 

5 

u 


1:3 


u 


u  " 
J2 


OOO 
OO  " 


oo 


8.1.8.8. 


SSetS 


? 


I 

2 
O 


t*0     H 


*-^    •    •    «     ta 


I   ^-M^-^*,-     O 


<? 


U 


1  !  < 


(A  (A 


»^5 


<<  fc 


5S=jii5§  Mi 


9 

cattle  and  feeding  them  out."  About  one-half  of  the  total  number 
raised  a  part  of  their  feeding  cattle,  and  42  percent  made  a  prac- 
tice of  purchasing  all  their  feeders.  ^ 

It  is  significant  that  a  considerably  smaller  proportion  of 
breeders  was  found  in  Indiana  than  in  Illinois.  Altho  the  data 
are  not  strictly  comparable,  owing  to  possible  differences  in  the 
class  of  cattle  feeders  represented  and  an  interval  of  fbur  years 
between  the  two  investigations,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the 
decrease  in  the  proportion  of  breeders  to  feeders  of  beef  cattle 
has  moved  gradually  from  the  eastern  to  the  western  border  of 
the  corn  belt. 

Notwithstanding  the  abandonment  of  cattle  breeding  by  a 
majority  of  the  more  extensive  beef  producers,  the  aggregate 
number  of  cattle  in  the  region  under  consideration  shows  an 
increase  from  1870  to  1910,  altho  in  but  few  instances  did  it  keep 
pace  with  the  population.  This  is  due  mainly  to  the  large  num- 
ber of  farmers  who  keep  only  a  few  cattle  to  furnish  the  family 
supply  of  milk  and  beef  and  to  consume  the  waste  roughage  and 
forage  of  the  farm.  The  statistics  for  the  years  1911,  1912,  and 
1913  show  an  actual  decrease  in  the  number  of  cattle  in  the  corn 
belt.  In  order  to  illustrate  this  point  more  fully,  Table  1  is  pre- 
sented. 

T.\BLE  1. — Number  op  C.-vrTLE  Other  th.an  Milch  Cows  in  the 
Corn -Belt  States 


Slates 

18701 

801  000 
750  000 
1  22  4  000 
815  000 
731  000 
346  00(1 
55  000 

18901 

19102 

19113 

19123   i   1913" 

Ohio 

Indiana... 
Illinois.... 
lown..  . . 
Missouri  . 
Kansas. . . 
Nebraska. 

918  000 
1  054  000 

1  765  000 

2  680  000 
1  819  000 
1  921  000 
1  346  000 

978  000 
1  020  000 

1  974  000 
3  611  000 

2  165  000 

3  2i>0  000 
3  040  000 

942  000 
744  000 

1  '-I91  000 

2  919  000 

1  671  000 

2  202  000 
2  225  000 

885  000 
707  000 

1  266  000 

2  773  000 
1  50'.  000 

1  87  2  (100 

2  002  000 

814  000 
686  000 

1  228  000 

2  607  000 
1  444  000 
1  778  000 
1  902  000 

Tola!... 

4  722  000 

11  503  000 

16  048  000 

12.094  000 

11  009  000  10  459  000 

1  U.   S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Bur.  An.   Indus.,  Ann.  Rept.   1897,  pp.  267-289. 

2  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1909,  p.  572. 

3  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yeajbook  1911,  p.  630.    . 

4  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1912,  p.  682. 


1  Ind.   Agr.   Exp.   Sta.,  Circ.   No.   12,  p.   11. 


10 


Influence  op  Dairying 

The  remarkable  growth  of  large  and  small  cities  thruout  this 
fertile  section  resulted  in  a  corresponding  demand  for  milk  and 
butter.  This  could  be  met  only  by  the  establishment  of  dairy 
farms  within  comparatively  short  distances  from  the  cities  and 
an  increased  production  of  dairy  products  on  general  farms; 
whereas  the  supply  of  beef  could  readily  be  secured  from 
greater  distances,  especially  in  view  of  the  increasing  beef  pro- 
duction of  the  range  country  at  this  time. 

Table  2  shows  the  actual  number  of  milch  cows  and  also  the 
proportion  of  milch  cows  to  total  cattle  in  the  corn-belt  states  by 
twenty-year  periods  since  1870,  including  1913. 

Table  2. — Number  of  Milch  Cows  in  the  Corn-Belt  States 


!      1870' 

1890' 

19102 

19133 

'^i;^ 

'°^^ 

07^  i^ 

0--^ 

States 

Number 

Pet. 
tot 
calt 

Number 

Pet. 
tot 
eatt 

Number 

Pet. 
tot 
eatt 

Number 

Pet 
tot 
eat! 

Ohio 

734  000  -'iB 

783  000 

46 

947  000 

49 

869  000 

52 

Indiana... 

435  000 

37 

608  000 

36 

687  000 

40 

634  000 

48 

Illinois. . . 

f^83  000 

36 

1  094  000 

38 

1  232  000 

38 

1  007  000 

45 

Iowa..  .. 

465  000 

36 

1  279  000 

32 

1  570^000 

30 

1  337  000 

34 

Missouri.. 

371  000 

34 

813  000 

.31 

925  000 

30 

789  000 

35 

Kansas. . . 

162  00(1 

32  1 

758  000 

28 

737  000 

18 

698  000 

28 

Nebraska. 

35  000 

39  1 

424  000 

24 

879  000 

22 

607  000 

24 

1  U.  S.  Dept  of  Agr.,  Bur.  An.  Indus.,  Ann.  Rept.   1897,  pp.  267-289. 

2  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1909,  p.  572. 

3  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agr.,  Yearbook  1912,  p.  682. 

Passing  from  the  eastern  to  the  western  states  of  the  corn 
belt,  the  percentages  in  the  right-hand  column  show  a  remark- 
ably uniform  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  milch  cows.  Approx- 
imately one-half  of  the  cattle  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  are 
classified  as  milch  cows,  while  only  about  one-fourth  of  those  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  are  so  classified. 

As  in  the  case  of  beef  cattle,  the  increase  in  the  number  of 
milch  cows  has  been  much  less  marked  during  the  last  twenty 
years  than  in  the  previous  period,  owing  to  the  less  pronounced 
changes  in  population  and  industrial  development.  The  slight 
increase  in  the  proportion  of  milch  cows  to  the  total  number  of 
cattle  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  during  forty  years  does  not 


11  . 

adequately  represent  the  increased  importance  of  dairying  as  a 
factor  in  the  cattle  industry,  nor  the  extent  to  which  the  dairy 
type  predominates  in  the  cattle  stock  of  the  states  mentioned.  It 
is  a  result  of  the  extension  of  general  farming  and  the  neglect  of 
systematic  beef-cattle  breeding,  together  with  a  great  tendency  on 
the  part  of  the  average  farmer  to  cross-breed  cattle  of  the  beef 
and  dairy  types,  thereby  deteriorating  the  quality  of  both.  In  this 
way  the  relative  number  of  animals  worthy  of  the  name  of  milch 
cows  has  been  limited,  and  at  the  same  time  in  most  corn-belt 
localities,  the  production  of  steers  suitable  for  the  feed  lot  has 
very  nearly  approached  the  vanishing  point. 

The  marked  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  milch  cows  to  the 
total  number  of  cattle  in  the  four  states  west  of  Illinois,  in  spite 
of  a  large  increase  in  their  actual  numbers,  is  explained  by  the 
general  movement  of  range  cattle  into  those  states  from  the 
Southwest  and  West.  It  is  likely  with  increased  population  and 
the  adoption  of  intensive  systems  of  agriculture,  the  proportion 
of  milch  cows  will  approach  more  nearly  that  of  the  states  farther 
east. 

Further  light  may  be  thrown  on  the  types  and  classes  of 
cattle  kept  on  corn-belt  farms  by  summarizing  the  returns  of  the 
United  States  Census  relating  to  age  and  sex  of  cattle.  Figures 
from  the  Twelfth  Census  are  presented  because  of  the  more 
minute  classification  it  affords  in  this  particular. 

Table   3. — Relative  Proportion  of  Various  Classes  op  Cattle  in  the 
Corn -Belt  States  in  1900^ 


States 


Ohio 

Indiana .  . 
Illinois  .  . 
Iowa  . . . 
Missouri . 
Kansas  . . . 
Nebraska 


V3  s_  c^ 
D  CD  rf 

3§i" 


-/}  rt  Sh 
3;  c«  > 


nerct.  perct.  perct.  perct, 


10.6 
H.9 
11.4 
13.5 
12.7 
12.4 
12.5 


6.9 

8.3 

9.5 

11.2 

12.0 

11.7 

9.9 


1.4 
2.1 
3.7 
3.2 
5.2 
9.5 
3.9 


w  =^  53 
—  L.  > 

3  rt  o 


CO  73 


^  CO  S 
O  t-  > 

C  CS   Q 


O  CO  03 


O  C-r 


03 
f_^  03  ' 

---J    CD 

O 


perct.  perct.  perct.^ perct.  perct. 


1.9 
1.7 
1.9 
1.7 
l.i 
1.4 
1.6 


10.4 
10.7 
10.4 
10.9 
10.3 
9.9 
10.8 


41.0 
35.2 
33.1 
27.2 
26.6 
15.7 
16.7 


4.: 
5.1 

7.2 

8.5 

10.7 

18.9 

21.0 


100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 


Average 22.7  12.4  110.4   4.6   1.6  10.5  26.1  11.7  1  100 

1  Calculated   from   Abstract  of  Twelfth   Census,    1900,   pp.    238,   240,   246,    247. 


12 

The  smaller  proportion  of  milch  cows  in  the  more  westerly 
states,  as  previously  shown,  is  here  verified,  and  a  correspond- 
ingly larger  proportion  of  other  cows  is  noted. 

Relatively  more  steers  are  found  in  the  western  portion  of 
the  corn  belt,  and  the  difference  is  more  marked  in  the  case  of  the. 
older  than  in  that  of  the  younger  steers,  thus  showing  the  natural 
tendency  to  keep  cattle  longer  in  those  sections  of  the  country 
where  pasture  lands  are  both  cheaper  and  more  abundant.  With 
respect  to  the  proportion  of  calves  under  one  year,  heifers  under 
two  years,  and  bulls,  the  data  show  no  striking  differences;  and 
likewise,  with  regard  to  the  proportion  of  bulls  to  cows  and  the 
proportion  of  calves  to  cows,  the  various  sections  of  the  corn 
belt  appear  comparatively  similar. 

Table  4  gives  available  data  from  the  Thirteenth  Census. 
While  these  data  are  not  in  all  respects  comparable  with  similar 
data  from  the  Twelfth  Census,  they  show  the  same  general  ten- 
dencies. 

Table  4. — Relative  Proportions  of   Various    Classes  of   Cattle   in 
THE  Corn-Belt  States  in  1910^ 


States 

Calves 

Steers 
and 
bulls 

Year- 
ling 
heii'crs 

Dairy 
cows 

Other 

COW.s 

Unclas- 
sified 
animals 

Total 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Iowa, 

Missou'^i  . . . 

Kansas^ 

Nebraska^.  . . 

perct. 
13.9 
13.5 
13.3 
12.8 
11.6 
12.4 
12.5 

perct. 
16.3 
16.9 
19.5 

29.1 

31.0 
34.1 
30.0 

perct. 
12.8 
13.3 
12.6 
12.7 
12.0 
10.9 
12.4 

perct. 
49.3 
46.5 
43.0 
31.6 
33.4 
23.9 
21.0 

perct. 
7.7 
9.8 
11.6 
13.8 
12.0 
18  1 
24.0 

P 

erct: 

O.C) 
0.1 

perct. 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 

Average.. . 

12.8     1      26.9           12.3 

33  2 

14.7 

0.1 

100. 

1  Calculated  from  Abstract  of  Thirteenth  Census,   1910,  pp.  316,  317. 

2  Includes  unclassified  animals. 

Fattening  Steers  in  the  Corn  Belt 

Notwithstanding  the  rapid  extension  of  the  acreage  devoted 
to  corn  growing,  and  the  great  demand  that  has  arisen  for  corn 
for  other  than  feeding  ourpcses,  the  crop  is  still  fed  chiefly  to 
farm  animals.  As  nearly  as  can  be  estimated,  80  percent  of  the 
crrn  produced  in  the  United  States  is  fed  to  live  stock. ^    It  is,  of 


'III.    Agr.    Exp.   Sta.    Circ.    No.    140,    p.    9. 


13 

course,  more  largely  sold  off  the  farms  of  the  corn-belt  states  than 
those  of  other  sections  of  the  country,  but  probably  not  far  from 
one-half  of  the  crop  of  Illinois  is  fed  on  the  farm/  A  temporary 
curtailment  of  one  branch  or  another  of  the  live-stock  industry, 
especially  cattle  and  hog  feeding,  is  so  promptly  reflected  in  a 
reduced  corn  market  that  stock  feeding  is  quickly  resumed  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent,  tho  with  increasing  reluctance  and  mis- 
givings. This  applies  especially  to  fattening  cattle,  as  this  branch 
of  live-stock  production  offers  the  most  immediate  and  ready 
means  of  disposing  of  large  quantities  of  corn,  and  at  the  same 
time  utilizes  much  otherwise  wasted  roughage,  such  as  stalk 
fields,  corn  stover,  and  straw. 

That  beef  production  in  the  corn  belt  has  become  largely  a 
steer-fattening  enterprise  apart  from  breeding  is  clearly  demon- 
strated by  the  investigations  of  the  Illinois  and  Indiana  Experi- 
ment Stations  quoted  in  a  preceding  paragraph.  In  Illinois  it  was 
found  that  in  1902  more  than  one-half  of  the  cattlemen  from 
whom  reports  were  obtained  were  feeders  who  purchased  the 
cattle  they  finished  for  market ;  in  addition,  more  than  one-third 
were  both  feeders  and  breeders,  but  even  the  latter  purchased 
most  of  their  feeding  cattle.-  About  85  percent  of  the  native  beef 
steers  marketed  in  Chicago  were  fattened  after  having  been  pur- 
chased as  stockers  and  feeders.'^  In  Indiana  in  1906,  929  reports 
were  received  from  cattlemen  in  that  state,  of  whom  42  percent 
were  found  to  purchase  all  their  feeding  cattle  and  52  percent 
grew  only  a  part  of  them  and  bought  the  remainder.* 

The  extent  and  tendency  of  this  important  phase  of  the  in- 
dustry are  also  shown  in  a  measure  by  the  shipments  of  stockers 
and  feeders  from  the  large  cattle  markets  during  recent  decades 
(see  Table  5). 

In  the  evolution,  or  transition,  of  corn-belt  beef  production 
from  a  cattle-raising  to  a  steer-feeding  proposition  with  a  large 
proportion  of  the  feeders  purchased  at  the  large  markets,  the 
business,  to  a  considerable  extent,  has  gravitated  into  the  hands 
of  men  who  handle  comparatively  large  numbers  of  cattle — from 
a  few  carloads  to  several  hundred  head.  Tho  these  professional 
cattle  feeders  in  most  cases  are  farmers,  they  usually  buy  all 

'111.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Circ.  No.  HO,  p.  8. 
2111.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Circ.  No.  88,  p.  1. 
3111.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Circ.  No.  79.  p.  6. 
nnd.    Agr.    Exp.    Sta.,   Circ.   No.    12.   p.    12. 


14 


Table  5. — Shipments  ofStockers  and  Feeders  from  Various  Markets^ 


Markets 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1913 

Chicago^ 

300  000 
724  000^ 
294  000 
75  0008 
51  0009 
114  000 
176  000^ 

406  000 
631  000 
431  000 
102  000 
60  000 
251  000 
178  000 

380  000 
914  000 
405  000 

Kansas  City.. 
Omaha* 

136  0003 

647  0003 
266  000« 

St.  Louis^.. 
St.  Joseph^... . 

159  000 
67  000 

St.  PauF  

130  00010 

262  000 
220  000 

Sioux  City-.  .  ■ 

Indianapolis". 
LiOuisviile^  . . . 

42  000 

Ft.  Worth^2.  _ 

493  000 

Denver" 

Buffalo" 

1 

1  From  reports  of  Stock  Yards  Companies. 

2  Statistics   for   1880   and    1890   not   obtainable. 

3  Estimated. 

4  1905.     statistics  for   1900  not  obtainable. 

5  Statistics   for   1880   not    obtainable. 

6  1897.     statistics  for  1890  not  obtainable. 

7  Statistics  for   1880,    1890,   and   1900   not  obtainable. 

8  1908.    statistics  for   1900  not  obtainable. 

9  1901.    statistics  for  1900  not  obtainable. 

10  1898.    statistics  for  1890  not  obtainable. 

11  Cattle  shipments  not  classified   as  to  stockers  and   feeders. 

12  Statistics  for  1880,    1890,   1900,   and  1910  not  obtainable. 

their  feeding  cattle  and  a  large  part  of  the  corn  they  feed,  use  but 
little  of  the  manure  produced,  and  freely  admit  the  large  element 
of  speculation  incurred.  The  capital,  risk,  business  skill,  and 
distance  from  markets  involved  in  cattle  feeding  necessarily  deter 
many  farmers  from  converting  their  corn  into  beef.  The  proper 
place  and  purpose  of  beef  production  in  the  corn  belt,  however, 
is  to  provide  a  profitable  market  for  the  crops  grovi^n  on  the  farm 
and  at  the  same  time  conserve  the  fertility  of  the  soil.  These  con- 
siderations are  of  greater  consequence  to  the  small  farmer  than 
to  the  "big  feeder."  It  is  therefore  essential  to  the  v^^elfare  of  agri- 
culture that  the  business  should  be  distributed  more  generally 
among  farms  of  average  size  instead  of  being  concentrated  in  the 
hands  of  a  fev^^  farmers  and  capitalists  v^hose  farms,  as  well  as 
their  fortunes,  are  frequently  enriched  at  the  expense  of  the 
neighbors  whose  corn  they  buy.  With  a  reasonable  degree  of 
skill  in  buying,  feeding,  and  marketing,  it  is  ordinarily  safe  and 
usually  profitable  for  the  general  farmer  to  engage  in  the  fatten- 
ing of  steers. 

In  some  sections  of  the  corn  belt,  cattle  feeding  has  not  only 


15 

passed  largely  from  the  hands  of  general  farmers  to  the  large 
feeders,  but  has  also  been  abandoned  to  a  considerable  extent  by 
the  latter.  This  tendency  may  be  assigned  to  several  causes: 
(1)  Prices  of  grain  have  been  relatively  higher  than  those  of 
cattle,  and  inducements  to  sell  corn  for  cash  at  the  elevator  in- 
stead of  feeding  have  therefore  been  strong.  (2)  Land  has 
increased  rapidly  in  value,  and  it  is  a  prevalent  idea  that  high- 
priced  land  prohibits  profitable  cattle  feeding.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  actual  influence  of  this  factor  is  usually  insignificant  as 
compared  v^ith  prices  of  corn  and  cattle  in  determining  the  profit 
in  feeding  cattle.  Increased  value  of  farm  lands  has  made  it  pos- 
sible for  many  cattlemen  to  retire  or  to  relinquish  active  manage- 
ment of  their  farms  to  others  less  competent  to  engage  profitably 
in  the  business.  (3)  Opportunities  for  cattle  feeding  in  vari- 
ous portions  of  the  West  have  attracted  many  successful  cattle 
feeders  from  the  older  sections  of  the  corn  belt.  The  opportun- 
ities for  exclusive  grain  growling  in  these  newer  regions  have  not 
been  equally  attractive;  hence  there  has  been  a  tendency  for  a 
large  exodus  of  live-stock  producers,  while  the  grain  growers 
more  generally  have  remained.  (4)  The  farms  in  many  of  the 
older,  more  prosperous  communities  have  become  occupied 
largely  by  tenants.  The  prevailing  system  of  short-term  leases 
and  a  lack  of  experience  in  feeding  cattle  on  the  part  of  tenants 
have  resulted  in  a  marked  decrease  not  only  in  cattle  feeding  but 
in  the  production  of  live  stock  of  all  kinds.  (5)  The  apparent 
continuation  of  satisfactory  crop  yields  in  a  large  part  of  the 
corn  belt  has  resulted  in  a  failure  to  appreciate  the  value  and 
necessity  of  manure.  This  fact  has  blinded  most  farmers  to  an 
important  factor  in  cattle  feeding.  (6)  The  fact  that  cattle, 
ready  for  the  feed  lot,  could  be  produced  cheaper  in  the  West 
than  in  the  corn  belt  has  caused  the  general  farmer,  who  pro- 
duced his  own  feeders  and  did  not  use  enough  cattle  to  pay  to  buy 
them  from  the  western  country,  to  go  out  of  the  live-stock  busi- 
ness. That  is,  at  the  prevailing  prices  he  could  not  compete  in 
the  production  of  beef  with  the  "big  feeder,"  who  was  able  to 
place  his  cattle  in  the  feed  lot  at  a  lower  cost  than  they  could  be 
produced  in  the  corn  belt. 

The  Outlook 
In  the  light  of  conditions  set  forth  in  this  and  foregoing  cir- 
culars, a  few  general  deductions  may  safely  be  drawn  relative  to 


16 

the  probable  future  trend  of  beef  production  in  the  corn-growing 
section  of  the  United  States. 

The  undeveloped  state  of  cattle  production  in  proportion  to 
the  population  and  the  area  of  the  United  States  as  compared 
with  the  condition  of  the  industry  in  older  countries  justifies  the 
expectation  of  an  ultimate  extension  and  development  of  cattle 
raising  and  feeding  in  this  country.  Tht  rapid  increase  of  pop- 
ulation and  the  slower  rate  of  increase  in  the  number  of  cattle 
have  rendered  the  export  beef  trade  a  relatively  insignificant  fac- 
tor; but  with  a  large  domestic  demand  in  proportion  to  the 
supply,  and  limited  competition  from  abroad,  the  industry  should 
be  practically  independent  of  foreign  trade.  General  market  con- 
ditions are  now  and  promise  to  remain  favorable  to  the  producer, 
for  he  has  a  domestic  market  as  a  regular  outlet  and  a  foreign 
market  as  an  influential  regulator  of  prices  and  as  an  elastic  con- 
sumer of  surplus. 

The  "passing  of  the  range"  has  not  diminished  the  number 
of  western  cattle  entering  the  markets,  but  the  growing  popula- 
tion of  the  West  and,  consequently,  the  increased  amount  of  beef 
slaughtered  and  consumed  in  that  section  have  reduced  the  rela- 
tive importance  of  western  cattle  as  a  factor  in  corn-belt  markets. 
Further,  corn-fed  beef  cattle,  which  can  be  properly  and  profit- 
ably finished  only  within  a  limited  section  of  the  country,  doubt- 
less will  continue  in  demand  by  a  class  of  trade  in  which  the 
cheaper  grass  beef  of  the  West  cannot  compete. 

Notwithstanding  the  general  subdivision  of  western  ranges 
and  ranches  by  settlers,  the  fact  that  large  areas  of  the  West  and 
Southwest  are  adapted  only  to  grazing  indicates  that  these  sec- 
tions will  continue  to  produce  a  considerable  number  of  feeding 
cattle.  As  Ireland  with  her  abundance  of  grass  has  grown 
"store"  or  feeding  cattle  for  the  farmers  of  England  and  Scot- 
land for  many  years  and  continues  to  do  so,  similarly  the  grass 
lands  of  our  great  West  and  South  may  reasonably  be  expected 
to  supply  stockers  and  feeders  to  large  markets  of  the  corn  belt 
for  many  years  to  come. 

An  increasing  proportion,  and  eventually  a  large  proportion, 
of  the  cattle  matured  in  the  corn  belt,  however,  must  be  reared 
there;  because,  as  explained  in  Circular  164,  the  quality  of  west- 
ern cattle  will  be  adversely  affected  by  an  increased  proportion  of 


17 

cattle  of  the  dairy  type,  and  at  the  same  time  the  development  of 
agriculture  will  facilitate  the  finishing  of  a  larger  proportion  of 
feeding  cattle  on  western  farms.  Certain  sections  of  the  corn 
belt,  and  some  farms  in  all  sections,  are  partially  or  wholly  un- 
suited  to  grain  growing,  and  these  lands,  in  many  instances,  may 
be  most  profitably  used  for  grazing  purposes. 

\Mth  the  development  of  more  intensive  farming  methods, 
the  introduction  of  corn  silage,  alfalfa,  and  forage  crops  in  gen- 
eral will  tend  to  render  both  cattle  raising  and  feeding  more  prac- 
ticable and  profitable.  Also,  regardless  of  the  price  of  land  or  of 
grain,  a  considerable  amount  of  roughage  and  aftermath  remains 
to  be  either  fed  or  wasted  on  every  farm,  and  this  factor  will  con- 
tribute largely  toward  maintaining  beef  production  in  the  corn 
belt. 

Eventually,  manure  will  be  regarded  more  highly  by  corn 
growers  in  the  Middle  West  than  it  is  now.  Long  continued  crop- 
ping without  adequate  rotation  and  fertilization  will  ultimately 
compel  such  attention  to  manure  as  it  now  receives  from  cattle 
feeders,  not  only  in  Great  Britain  and  Continental  Europe,  but 
also  in  certain  parts  of  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio.  Cattle 
feeding  will  be  found  to  be  one  of  the  most  convenient  and  satis- 
factory means  of  obtaining  this  valuable  fertilizer.  This  factor 
is  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  treated  at  some  length  in  a  sub- 
sequent circular. 

Over  against  what  has  been  said  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs, 
it  must  also  be  clearly  understood  that  a  remunerative  and  rea- 
sonably stable  market  will  be  indispensable  to  the  further 
development  of  the  beef-cattle  industry.  Farming  in  gen- 
eral, and  stock  raising  in  particular,  must  henceforth  be  recog- 
nized as  a  capitalized  business,  the  products  of  which  must  sell 
above  the  cost  of  production  in  order  to  render  the  enterprise 
profitable.  Those  upon  whom  the  cattle  feeder  is  dependent  for  his 
returns  must  consider  the  increasing  cost  of  producing  cattle  un- 
der present  and  future  conditions,  and  pay  prices  commensurate 
therewith.  Unfortunately,  the  cattle  feeder  frequently  has  been 
compelled  to  accept  very  inadequate  returns,  and  seldom  has  his 
profit  been  in  full  proportion  to  his  outlay  if  all  elements  of  cost 
be  figured  at  their  just  value. 

^"The  important  fact  connected  with  the  cattle-raising  in- 
dustry is  a  marked  shortage,  the  extent  and  far  reaching  effects 


IS 

of  which  the  public  has  by  no  means  fully  realized.  The  con- 
suming public  have  complained  of  the  high  cost  of  meats.  At 
times  they  have  accused  producers  of  securing  too  great  profits 
from  the  business.  There  should  be  no  mistake  or  misunderstand- 
ing. The  present  shortage  is  due  primarily  to  the  fact  that  farmers 
have  found  meat  production,  and  primarily  beef  production,  less 
profitable  than  other  agricultural  enterprises.  Over-production 
and  cheap  meat,  while  possible,  are  extremely  remote.  An 
increased  supply  will  come,  not  as  a  result  of  lower  prices,  but 
only  as  a  result  of  higher  prices.  Consumers  generally  do  not 
appreciate  the  fact  that  for  a  generation  or  more  they  have  been 
able  to  buy  meat  products  at  a  price  which  does  not  cover  the  cost 
of  production  under  present-day  conditions.  It  is  obvious  that 
the  conditions  which  have  brought  about  the  increased  cost  of 
meat  products  will  continue  to  operate  even  in  greater  force  in 
the  future  than  in  the  past. 

"The  public  will  ultimately  come  to  understand  that  the  pro- 
ducer must  receive  more  rather  than  less  for  his  product  if  an 
ample  supply  of  meat  is  to  be  assured.  In  the  past  the  price  of 
cattle  has  been  based,  so  far  as  it  has  been  based  upon  anything, 
upon  free  or  cheap  range,  cheap  land  and  labor,  and  cheap  corn. 
Even  the  cattle  feeder  of  the  corn  belt  has  been  guilty  at  times  of 
relying  for  his  profit  upon  sharp  practice  in  buying  feeding  cattle 
for  less  than  the  cost  of  production  when  the  producer,  thru 
drouth  or  misfortune  or  possibly  a  lack  of  knowledge,  has  been 
forced  to  sell.  Few,  if  any,  of  these  conditions  surround  the 
industry  today. 

"All  will  readily  agree  that  the  producer  is  entitled  to  a  mod- 
est profit  in  cattle  production.  No  business  which  depends  upon 
sharp  practice,  or  upon  depriving  some  necessary  factor  in  the 
trade  from  its  just  proportion  of  the  profits  of  the  industry  can 
long  survive.  It  may  well  be  asked.  What  is  a  modest  profit?  In 
the  past,  with  rapidly  changing  conditions,  it  has  been  next  to 
impossible  to  answer  this  question.  Conditions  are  now  likely 
to  be  more  stable;  that  is,  changes  will  be  less  frequent  and  less 
radical.  A  business-like  beef  production  which  extends  over 
such  a  vast  area  of  country  where  conditions  surrounding  it  are 
so  variable  naturally  presents  a  most  difficult  problem.  One 
thing,  however,  is  certain,  and  that  is  that  if  there  is  any  con- 

1  Extract  fiom  an  address   by  Professor  Mumford   before   the   Illinois   State   Farmers'    Institute 
at  Galesburg,   February  18,   1914. 


19 

siderable  increase  in  the  production  of  beef  cattle  in  the  United 
States,  it  will  come  from  the  establishment  of  small  herds  on 
many  farms  rather  than  of  large  herds  on  extensive  areas.  This 
means,  if  it  means  anything,  that  the  price  will  be  fixed  by  the 
cost  of  producing  cattle  on  improved  farms,  so  that  ultimately 
the  producer  will  be  by  far  the  most  important  factor  in  fixing 
the  price  of  beef.  This  does  not  mean  that  producers  will  be  per- 
mitted to  fix  a  price  altogether  out  of  proportion  with  the  cost  of 
production,  but  one  entirely  consistent  with  it. 

"Obviously,  beef  will  be  most  extensively  produced  where 
conditions  favor  its  economical  production.  Can  it  be  denied  that 
any  considerable  area  in  this  or  in  any  other  country  offers  more 
favorable  conditions  for  beef  production  than  the  corn  belt?  If 
not,  then  the  corn  belt  holds  the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  cattle 
situation.  Conditions  surrounding  the  industry  and  the  cost  of 
producing  beef  cattle  in  the  corn  belt,  therefore,  will  likely 
be  a  large  factor  in  determining  the  answer  to  the  question  of 
a  price  basis  which  will  represent  the  cost  of  production  and  a 
modest  profit.  Fortunately,  nowhere  in  the  country  has  the  cost 
of  production  been  more  carefully  worked  out  or  more  accu- 
rately determined.  The  largest  and  most  advantageous  use  of 
these  data  is  one  of  the  problems  of  the  corn-belt  cattlemen. 

"No  price  basis  can  prevail  which  does  not  represent  the 
greatest  use  of  the  best  methods  in  cattle  production.  The  cattle 
raiser  who  does  not  and  will  not  avail  himself  of  the  most  eco- 
nomical practice  must  be  content  to  accept  lessened  or,  in  many 
instances,  no  profits.  This  means  that  ultimately  he  must  change 
his  ways  or  go  out  of  business. 

"The  resumption  of  cattle  raising  on  many  of  the  smaller 
corn-belt  farms  will  present  problems  of  marketing  which  will 
need  adjustment.  The  producer  of  less  than  a  carload  is  now 
distinctly  handicapped,  and  yet  it  has  just  been  predicted  that  the 
bulk  of  the  cattle  in  the  future  will  be  produced  by  men  who  have 
considerably  less  than  a  carload  of  cattle  ready  for  market  at  any 
one  time  during  the  year.  There  will  need  to  be  developed,  there- 
fore, some  method  of  marketing  which  gives  to  the  smaller  oper- 
ator substantially  the  same  advantages  enjoyed  by  the  larger 
operators." 


r-WiS'a 


